The Wall Street Journal wrote an unfortunate and misleading op-ed today on the new protocols on illegal immigration issued by the Department of Homeland Security — epitomized by the Journal’s weird sentence, “Mr. Kelly’s order is so sweeping that it could capture law-abiding immigrants whose only crime is using false documents to work.”

Only crime? (And what a string of oxymorons: “law-abiding”/“crime”/“false documents”!)

The WSJ should know that “false documents” are seldom used just “to work,” but are part and parcel of a continuous process of misleading or defrauding the system in nearly every transaction with government and private enterprise.

“False documents” do not imply a misspelled middle name or a day or two off the correct date of birth, or some sort of innocuous pseudonym. No, they involve the deliberate creation of a false identity, sometimes at the expense of a real person, and often with accompanying fraudulent Social Security numbers and photo identifications — crimes that both foul up the bureaucracy for law-abiding citizens, facilitate other crimes, and are the sort of felonies that most Americans would lose their jobs over and face either jail time or stiff fines. And often they are the second crimes — following not “law-abiding” behavior but the initial crime of entering and residing in the United States unlawfully.

The WSJ’s editors some time should wake up and find a wrecked car sitting on their property (that went off the road and airborne and did thousands of dollars of damage), the driver having fled and the registration on the abandoned vehicle proving to be a “false document,” or better yet, discovering that one’s check-routing number was printed on “false document” checks to facilitate theft of thousands of dollars, or having someone speed off after hitting your mailbox only to find from sheriffs that the license-plate numbers revealed a “false document” identity, or going to a market in the San Joaquin Valley while the person ahead of you tries four EBT cards in succession under “false document” names before one is found to have a positive balance, or waiting in line in a doctor’s office as the receptionist politely explains to the person ahead of you that the health card presented has a name that does not match the driver’s license presented. The use of “false documents” is not an end game or mere infraction, but rather the doorway to all sorts of subsequent falsification and fraud that does enormous damage both to the system in general and to individuals in particular.

As I wrote today, Americans are compassionate people and might well countenance allowing illegal-immigrant aliens without subsequent criminal records, but with a record of some years of established residence and a productive work history without dependence on social welfare, to pay a fine, apply for a green card, and become legalized residents — all the while maintaining residence in the U.S.

But the idea that illegal immigrants who assume false identities or lie on government documents thereby commit minor infractions is, well, outrageous.

[I have been recommending books on various subjects for over 30 years, now. I do this because I often find myself in disagreement with those who think that they are entitled, or because as an attorney, I am advocating a position or cause for which I have been hired to argue. This blog has as its first posting, an essay on the climate change hoax. Elsewhere are two postings on petrochemicals primarily because over 95% if everything around us has or requires a distilled petrochemical in its making or as an integral component. Plastic, tar, asphalt, paint, electricity, aspirin, clothing, &c., all require some form of petrochemical as a component either directly or in its manufacturing process. Hillary, Barry, and Bernie notwithstanding, try living without it all.

There are several posts on economics. A point not made in them is that of John Maynard Keynes’ biography. Keynes’ data source is the XIXth Century. His basis does not include the common use of electricity and, in fact, predates The Great Depression and commonplace birth control. His theories have all been debunked by the likes of Hazlett, Hayek, Freidman, von Mises, et al.

There are several more original posts mixed in with those by others whom I think it worth your time to read and contemplate. The conclusions are mine, but the source material led me to those conclusions.

My point in this prologue, is that there is a post of a recommended reading list. I have not updated it since its posting, but it is still valid and from which most of my work originates. Leffler’s works on petrochemicals, Solomon’s on climate change, Hayek & von Mises on economics, Sun Tzu on war & business, Foote’s on The War of 1861, and so many others.

A book not on the list, but which I have been recommending for years, is Thomas Sowell’s, Ph. D., “The Vision of the Anointed; Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy”. I have posted excerpts on the blog, and now choose to add another. Barry, Hillary, and Bernie at the top of the heap are screaming about income inequality and how unequal it is. I now accent Dr. Sowell’s opinion by quoting from his above noted work, pp 211-213.

I cannot strongly enough recommend his works.

Posted 20 May 2016

BTW, today’s TWSJ p 11 has an op-ed on minimum wage which falls right into this discussion.]

“INCOME DISTRIBUTION”

Despite a voluminous and fervent literature on “income distribution,” the cold fact is that income is not distributed: It is earned. People paying each other for goods and services generate income. While many people’s entire income comes from a salary paid to them by a given employer, many others collect individual fees for everything from shoe shines to surgery, and it is the sum total of these innumerable fees which constitutes their income. Other income is distributed from a central point as social security checks, welfare payments, unemployment compensation, and the like. But that is not how most people get most income.

To say that “wealth is so unfairly distributed in America,” as Ronald Dworkin does,43 is grossly misleading when most wealth in the United States is not distributed at all. People create it, earn it, save it, and spend it.

If one believes that income and wealth should not originate as they do now, but instead should be distributed as largess from some central point, then that argument should be made openly, plainly, and honestly. But to talk as if we currently have a certain distribution result A which should be changed to distribution result B is to misstate the issue and disguise a radical institutional change as a simple adjustment of preferences. The word “distribution” can of course be used in more than one sense. In a purely statistical sense, we can speak of the “distribution” of heights in the population, without believing someone in Washington decides how tall we should all be and then mails out these heights to different individuals. What we cannot do, either logically or morally, is to shift back and forth between these two very different conceptions of distribution. Newspapers are distributed in one sense – they are sent out from a printing plant to scattered sites to be sold to readers – but heights are distributed only in the other sense.

Those who criticize the existing “distribution” of income in the United States are criticizing the statistical results of systemic processes. They are usually not even discussing the economic fate of actual flesh-and-blood human beings, for the economic positions of given individuals vary greatly within a relatively few years. What is really being said is that numbers don’t look right to the anointed – and that this is what matters, that all the myriad purposes of the millions of human beings who are transacting with one another in the marketplace must be subordinated to the goal of presenting a certain statistical plateau to anointed observers.

To question the “fairness” or other index of validity of the existing statistics growing out of voluntary economic transactions is to question whether those who spent their own money to buy what they wanted from other people have a right to do so. To say that a shoe shine boy earns “too little” or a surgeon “too much” is to say that third parties should have the right to preempt the decisions of those who have elected to spend their money on shoe shines or surgery. To say that “society” should decide how much it values various goods and services is to say that individual decisions on these matters should be superseded by collective decisions made by political surrogates. But to say this openly would require some persuasive reasons why collective decisions are better than individual decisions and why third parties are better judges than those who are making their own trade-offs at their own expense.

Again, no one would seriously entertain such an arrogant and presumptuous goal, if presented openly, plainly, and honestly. They may, however, be led in that direction if the anointed are able to slip undetected back and forth between one definition of “distribution” and another, as the exigencies of the argument require.

In honor of tax day, a look at the best quotes from Ludwig von Mises on taxation:

1. “Some experts have declared that it is necessary to tax the people until it hurts. I disagree with these sadists.”
Source: Defense, Controls, and Inflation

2. “If the present tax rates had been in effect from the beginning of our century, many who are millionaires today would live under more modest circumstances. But all those new branches of industry which supply the masses with articles unheard of before would operate, if at all, on a much smaller scale, and their products would be beyond the reach of the common man.”
Source: Planning for Freedom

4. “Estate taxes of the height they have already attained for the upper brackets are no longer to be qualified as taxes. They are measures of expropriation.”
Source: Defense, Controls, and Inflation ​

5. “Progressive taxation of income and profits means that precisely those parts of the income which people would have saved and invested are taxed away.”
Source: Economic Policy

6. “The metamorphosis of taxes into weapons of destruction is the mark of present-day public finance.”
Source: Human Action

7. “Taxes are paid because the taxpayers are afraid of offering resistance to the tax gatherers. They know that any disobedience or resistance is hopeless. As long as this is the state of affairs, the government is able to collect the money that it wants to spend.”
Source: Human Action

8. “[T]he system of discriminatory taxation universally accepted under the misleading name of progressive taxation of income and inheritance is not a mode of taxation. It is rather a mode of disguised expropriation of the successful capitalists and entrepreneurs.”
Source: Human Action

9. “Nothing is more calculated to make a demagogue popular than a constantly reiterated demand for heavy taxes on the rich. Capital levies and high income taxes on the larger incomes are extraordinarily popular with the masses, who do not have to pay them.”
Source: Human Action

Martial Law in the United States: How Likely is it, and What will happen under Martial law?
Filed under Man-made Disasters, Preparedness, Threats
Posted by: Robert Richardson

The march towards martial law is something that is often ignored by the general public, often labeled as Quackery or something belonging on conspiracy websites. But what’s happening in this country is exactly what our founders warned us about, and martial law is something they took very, very seriously.
What is martial law?

If you’re looking for a definition, then Martial Law basically means using state or national military force to enforce the will of the government on the people.

Under a declaration of martial law, Constitutional freedoms and liberties are suspended, and civilians are no longer entitled to their civil rights. It basically allows the government, or a tyrannical politician, to shred the Constitution and impose its will through military force.
History of Martial Law in the United States of America

“Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.”
Winston Churchill

In one way or another there have always been tyrants who have used the power of government to suppress and control the public. But if we are looking for specific examples of Martial Law being used inside the United States, we don’t have to look very hard or far to find them.

Using the strictest definition of the term, we can see the roots of martial law in America take hold during the lead up to the Revolutionary war. Although there were many reasons for the war, including resistance to taxes imposed by the British parliament, the main catalyst was England’s decision to use military troops to enforce everyday law throughout the colonies.
The beginning of the end? The Civil War Ushers in a Strong Central Government through Martial Law Enforcement

Civil War Soldiers

Flash forward a hundred years, and many of the most egregious examples of martial law can be found throughout the civil war. While today’s history books largely ignore the real reasons for the war, or the many atrocities committed by President Lincoln, the facts of what really happened cannot be disputed.

The reason we have lost so many of our liberties can be tied directly to the civil war.

On September 15, 1863, President Lincoln imposed Congressionally-authorized martial law. While history contends the war was fought to end slavery, the truth is, Lincoln by his own admission never really cared about freeing slaves. In fact, Lincoln never intended to abolish slavery, his main interest was centralizing government power and using the federal government to exert complete control over all citizens. The abolishment of slavery was only a byproduct of the war; it actually took the 13th amendment to end slavery, since Lincoln actually only freed Southern slaves, not slaves in states loyal to the Union.

During the Civil War, Lincoln continually violated the Constitution, in some cases suspending the entire Constitution that he swore to uphold.

He suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus without the consent of congress.
He shutdown newspapers whose writers displayed any dissent to Union policy or spoke out against him.
He raised troops without the consent of Congress.
He closed courts by force.
He even imprisoned citizens, newspaper owners and elected officials without cause and without a trail.

Our founders were very wary of using the military to enforce public policy, and concerns about this type of abuse date back to, and largely influenced, the creation of the Constitution. The founders continually warned about using military force to uphold law and order; unfortunately, most Americans are rather ignorant of history and are even more ignorant to what our actual founders intended when they created the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
What will happen under Martial law?

Military Style SWAT Team Raid

The actual words martial law will probably never be used.

The first thing you will likely see is a declaration of a “State of Emergency”. This may be done nationally, in cases of war or a large-scale terrorist attacks; or it may happen locally, as witnessed in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

In August of 2005, New Orleans was declared a disaster area and a state of emergency was declared by the governor. This allowed state officials to order evacuations and forcefully remove residents from their homes, suspend certain laws, confiscate firearms, and suspend the sale of items like liquor, firearms and ammunition.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans police, the U.S. Marshalls office, and the Louisiana National Guard forcibly confiscated over 1,000 legal firearms from law-abiding citizens.

Depending on the reasons behind the declaration you may also see:

The suspension of the Constitution, probably starting with the first and second amendment.
Confiscation of firearms; it has happened and it will happen again.
Suspension of Habeas corpus: Imprisonment without due process and without a trail.
Travel Restrictions, including road closures and possibly even quarantine zones.
Mandatory Curfews and Mandatory Identification.
Automatic search and seizures without warrant.

When can Martial Law be enacted?

Military Force

When Martial Law can be enacted is a pretty touchy subject, largely because our founders never intended the federal government or a standing army be permitted to take such actions. Unfortunately, most people accept these unconstitutional activities, and are more than willing to give up their essential liberties in exchange for peace of mind and not having to think for themselves.

This is something Benjamin Franklin warned about when he famously wrote,
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

How likely is martial law in the United States?

Let’s face it, this country is a ticking time bomb. From widespread social unrest, crime and violence to a growing national debt which includes an entire subset of our population that depends on government assistance to exist, the writing is on the wall: Trouble is Coming.

Riots in the Streets of America

In my opinion, we are already under a form of martial law. The founders never intended standing armies policing the citizens of the United States; sadly that is exactly what we have.

Drones, armored vehicles with high power weapons, tanks, and battlefield helicopters are no longer something that you see on some foreign battlefield; it’s now standard operating procedure at police stations throughout the country. Our federal government has poured billions of dollars into militarizing and taking over our country’s local police forces, in what can only be described as a domestic military force or standing army meant to enforce federal law.

President Bush Expands Martial Law Authority

George Bush Signing Bill

On September 29, 2006, President George W. Bush signed the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5122). The law expanded the President’s authority to declare Martial Law under revisions to the Insurrection Act, and actually allowed the President to take charge of National Guard troops without state governor authorization.

While certain aspects of the bill were rolled back in 2008, President Obama used the 2012 NDAA to further strengthen the Executive offices ability to declare Martial Law, and added provisions that would allow military troops to detain U.S. citizens without a trial.

President Obama Forms National Police Task Force; Uses Social unrest as Justification.

Obama Signing Bill

In March of 2015, the Obama administration put together a task force that outlined rules for our nation’s police.

In his Task Force on 21st century policing report, he outlined the formation of a National Policing Practices and Accountability Division within the federal government. The report went on to describe how the Department of Homeland Security could be used to “ensure that community policing tactics in state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies are incorporated into their role in homeland security.”

Increasing number of Joint Police/Military Drills are using American Citizens as Theoretical Threats.

Military Style Police Force

From the Jade Helm Military drills that classified Texas and Utah as hostile zones, to National Guard troops in California using crisis actors to portray “right-wing” U.S. citizens in their training exercises, there is a growing number of military style drills that are portraying American citizens as the perceived threat.

Back in 2012, an army report about the future use of the military as a police force within the United States looked at theoretical situations where the U.S. Army could be used against Tea Party “insurrectionists” who take over U.S. cities. During that same time period, the Department of Homeland Security released a report titled, “Hot Spots of Terrorism and Other Crimes in the United States,” where they outlined who the federal government sees as the largest terrorist threat in the country – that threat was U.S. citizens with extreme “right-wing” views.

The United Stated of America that our Founders created is gone; it’s been replaced by a system that has grown so powerful that most people don’t even realize they’ve become enslaved by that very system.

So how likely is Martial Law in the United States? Well, it’s already here; unfortunately, most people will choose to ignore the reality of the situation.

Well, I may be forced to change my position on legalizing marijuana. This is the first set of evidence that I have seen actually collected by a reputable news organization. I had to replay the Portuguese data on heroin reduction twice, then reconsider the data on Colorado, and consider that the Colorado data is incomplete and that it is too early to tell. The increase in trafficking from CO through to St. Louis MO is up, but it is too early to tell the long-term effect.

The Republicans in the House and Senate have resurrected Fast Track Authority to give Obama the ability to bypass the checks and balances of congress. In order to pass it, they are trying to say that President Ronald Reagan would approve the UNCONSTITUTIONAL TPA Bill. They are “lying outright” to their fellow Congressmen–please read the below listed article that details what President Ronald Reagan did and based upon what we know of his conservative philosophy, what he would do today.—President Reagan cared about protecting American jobs for hard working men and women.

This TPA Bill will destroy the US Borders forever, and will open the flood gates to millions of Illegal Aliens from Mexico, from 11 Asian countries, and eventually will allow millions more Illegal Aliens to enter the United States thru the UN Resettlement Program (which is preventing Christian refugees from entering the US). Those refugees have been stealthily resettled by Obama in 195 cities across the nation for the last 6 years. To allow the flood gate to open to let foreign alien workers to enter the US, a time when 104 million Americans are unemployed is a crime against middle and low income Americans seeking employment.

I encourage you to take action to prevent the Republican leaders in the House and Senate from working with Pelosi and Reed to pass this Unconstitutional TPA Bill that will allow Obama to force the United States to abide by all UN Treaties. Rhinos go to the other side of the aisle to get votes to p[ass measures, and frustrate the will of their rank and file members. That is what Boehner has done in the past to fund and support Obama’s unconstitutional violation of Federal Immigration Laws—and he is doing it again to ram the Unconstitutional TPA Bill thru Congress.

The TPA Bill will eliminate the Constitutional requirement that 2/3rd of the US Senate must vote to approve and pass any international treaty with a foreign country. Obama is already violating the US Constitution and bypassing the US Senate, while he and Kerry negotiate a treaty with Iran, that was initiated by then Secretary of State Clinton. That Nuclear Weapons Treaty will allow Iran to develop and deploy nuclear weapons on their Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. Those nuclear tipped missiles will become a threat and a dagger thrust poised to strike the heart of the United States’ homeland.

The TPA Bill will give up the US’ Sovereignty to the Marxists, Socialist, and Communists in control of the UN who have been working with Obama to eliminate the 2nd Amendment rights of all Americans by forcing the Congress to abide by the UN Small Arms Treaty, a treaty that the US Senate has already voted down because it violates the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution, to the disappointment of Obama, Clinton, and Kerry.

Obama is still determined to force the US to abide by the anti 2nd Amendment UN Small Arms Treaty with the support of the block of 70 elected Socialist, Marxists, and Communist members of Congress.

The below listed E-mail will tell you how to easily contact your Senator and Congressmen and demand that they not listen to the outright lies the leaders of the House and Senate are promulgating about what President Reagan would do in regard to the Unconstitutional TPA Bill—please read the below listed article by Charles Benninghoff, Esq..

I first worked for Governor Reagan in his first presidential race against President Gerald Ford that we lost at the Republican Convention in Kansas City, then worked for President Reagan on and off for the next 10 years (a total of 14 remarkable years), and I believe he would never let this Unconstitutional TPA Bill pass under any circumstance. For the Republican leaders in the Senate and House to take President Reagan’s good name in vain, to get Republican members of Congress to pass the Unconstitutional TPA Bill, is further proof that the Republican leaders in control of the House and Senate are once again discrediting themselves in the eyes of hundreds of millions Patriotic Americans who knew and supported President Reagan.

I encourage you to help us protect and defend the US Constitution and the 2nd Amendment that millions of Americans servicemen fought and died to protect. I encourage you to demand that your Congressional representatives vote against the “SECRET” TPA Bill that is thousands of pages long, that no member of Congress has sat down and read in its entirety, and is another thousand page bill that is being jammed down the collective throats of hard working Americans by the Republican and Democrat leaders in Congress.

The TPA Bill will have much worse consequences for our freedom and independence, than the Obamacare Law that Obama and Pelosi jammed down the collective throats of all Americans. If the TPA Bill passes, it will further continue to transform The Free Enterprise System, that over the past 238 years, created the most effective economic engine in the history of mankind, and we will be “CHANGED” into a Socialist/Welfare State.

Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62

Capt USN(Ret)/Former FBI/Reagan Administration Alumnus

Fax: (619) 220-0109

Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

Liberal Republicans (RINOs) in Congress are trying to claim that Ronald Reagan used Trade Promotion Authority, also known as fast-track trade powers, and therefore they must now renew Trade Promotion Authority for Obama immediately.

Liberals Republicans just love to invoke Ronald Reagan’s name while hoping that you will not pay any attention to the historical record.

This argument being pushed by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and House Speaker John Boehner shows just how DESPERATE the RINOs are to pass fast-track powers for Obama.

The RINOs may have the votes to pass fast-track for Obama in the House, if they win this argument, and that is why they are promoting it right now.

Send FaxGrams to keep the pressure on House Republicans right now to deny fast-track powers from Obama!

Did Ronald Reagan use Trade Promotion Authority or fast-track powers?

ANSWER: Yes.

Did America lose millions of jobs under crippling trade deficits because of Ronald Reagan’s trade deals as we have seen under the Bushes, Clinton and Obama?

ANSWER: No.

Ronald Reagan was hated by the so-called “free-traders” because he always protected American jobs FIRST in trade agreements — which we know Obama will not do.

As an example, Japan tried to flood the American market with cheap cars in the 1980s. Reagan immediately stepped in and imposed import controls on Japan and he is credited with single-handedly saving the American auto industry.

Without Reagan’s actions, Ford and Chrysler would have gone belly-up at the time and hundreds of thousands of Americans would have lost good-paying jobs.

President Reagan protected American workers through dozens of trade agreements and at the end of his time in office, the free-traders at the Cato Institute wrote, “From the standpoint of free trade, we have seen only a few bright days in the last eight years.”

America has been losing jobs through trade agreements ever since Reagan left office:

The Bush-Clinton North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) cost America 700,000 jobs.
The Obama Korea-US trade Agreement (KORUS) passed in 2012 cost America 65,000 jobs.
Opening communist China up to trade with the US cost America 2.1 million manufacturing jobs between 2001 and 2011. The jobs of American workers are now being done by communist workers who are paid about $2,500 per year!

Ronald Reagan did not tolerate Americans losing their jobs because of trade agreements and that is the true conservative position! It is absolutely hypocritical of the RINOs to invoke Ronald Reagan’s name in their efforts to grant Obama fast-track trade powers.

Tell the Republicans in Congress to deny fast-track powers to Obama! Tell the House to vote NO on fast-track for Obama!

We are opposed to Obama’s trade deals and fast-track powers because these deals deliver the exact opposite of what they promise.

Deuteronomy 15:6 states, “For the Lord your God blesses you, as He promised you; and you shall lend unto many nations, but you shall not borrow; and you shall reign over many nations, but they shall not reign over you.”

Obama’s trade deals will put America further into debt to foreign countries and will allow those countries to reign over us by suspending congressional oversight.

In 1892, Republican Senator William McKinley who would one day become President said, “Free trade results in giving our money, our manufactures, and our markets to other nations.”

This was the conservative position on trade until Ronald Reagan left office. Reagan protected our currency, our manufacturing jobs and our markets, something that no president has done since and certainly not Obama!

What has changed since Reagan left office? Multinational corporations are now permitted to give American congressional members untold billions of dollars each year, in essence bribing these elected officials to see things their way. And, “their way” does NOT include any concern about what happens to American workers, only what will realize for these international corporate giants the greatest profits!

Send your FaxGrams to deny Obama fast-track powers today!

Then, please tell others about this campaign by sending them this link:

Bill,
In light of your comments with regard to the subject issue, you should review the below listed legal argument submitted by Dr Dennis Jackson. He states that there is no legal authority to delegate this type of authority because Congress does not have the right or authority to delegate this to a third party and surly not to the executive branch.
Specific mention is made of the Hamilton’s Paper 84 in his sophisticated argument, and he refers to the argument Madison made in Federalist Paper 45. You should share this with attorneys you communicate with and seek their support to ask their Senators not to pass the TPA Bill, because among many other destructive provisions, it eliminates all borders of the United States. We as a nation are in extremis because of the stupidity of the Republican leadership in Congress—this secret bill with thousands of pages no one has even seen is more destructive than Obamacare.

Federalist Paper 45, Madison stated that the “powers.. delegated are few and defined”…

First we need to know what delegated means. Someone with authority allowed a subordinate to exercise the authority that is specifically defined. There is no authority to delegate this authority because congress does not have the right or authority to delegate this to a third party and surly not to the executive. Specific mention to Hamilton’s Paper 84 should be made here. Please see the paper, if you do not have a copy you can find a PDF on line so you can search it.

The Federalist has been used 291 times by the Supreme Court for guidance, it is Prima Facie intent of the Framers in developing the Constitution. The Federalist has also been used over 1500 times by lesser authorities in treatise, legal article and law reviews, it is a far gone conclusion.

The Debates also known as Elliot’s Debates are the foundation for the Federalist and are the notes from Madison who was the Secretary of the Convention. It is Gospel in the legal world. It is also available in PDF form. Until we as free men understand the system as it was intended we will forever be tilting windmills. The illusion created by decades of Marxist Methodology and socialist ideology is rampant. It may be past the breaking point. At the end of the day we are accountable for not informing ourselves. Relying on the officials who populate the halls of congress is about a smart as putting the wolf in the sheep pen to stand guard. We are the sheep dogs, those who know a lie when we hear it. We, as Samuel was commanded, are the watchmen on the wall and the protectors of the Republic.

It is sort of like navigation. The first things you do is fix your position. Without that you don’t know where you have come from or where you are going. It is that simple. The founding documents are the very least of the navigational tools. This is basic seamanship on the waters of history. It is our responsibility to know and be able to fix our position with whom ever we connect with. I have done this and even commented on a Socialist site. The response I got was many positive comments. The lady wrote me and commended my approach even though I identified myself as an NRA Life Patron Member, as Firearms Instructor and a Strict Construction Constitutionalist. There were other things as well but I am trying to be brief.

I have had other encounters and each time I quote Book and Verse of the Constitution , it original intent and the purpose for which it was written I get no takers fro an otherwise ravenous pack. The core issue her is, and there is always a core issue around which all the orbiting sub arguments are anchored to, none of the Socialists really understand the Document. They have been spoon fed the swill they regurgitate. When they get the truth in correct logical form they have no where to go. The truth is a powerful tool when you are able to articulate it. If you get caught in the rhetoric and succumb to the reaction to choke the shit out of some ass hole who desperately deserves it you loose. If you stay the course and don’t succumb and respond with truth and correct logic, as in Aristotelian Logic, they clam right up because that are not trained to combat logic. Its like a shoot out with a bunch of guys wielding clubs, slaughter.

So if you will look at this document that I am sending it will fix a position for you. Not only will it fix the position for the subject that I intended it for, immigration, it will fix the position for the instant cause in your communication. I think that I perhaps have sent this along but I wanted to refresh your memory and illustrate how simple a thing is if we simply educate ourselves. In other terms Jesus fought with the Pharisees for the same reason. They perverted the law with the “traditions of men”. This is the same way our Law, the Constitution, is being cut to pieces. We are fighting the same type of corruption with these critters who have sold their soul to Lucifer. Don’t believe me??? Get a copy of Alinsky’s book “Rules for Radicals”. He actually dedicated his book to Lucifer. The Biblical prophesies are exactly true and no one is in touch enough to see it. Remember the Jews were in denial right up to and into the gas chambers.
My gratitude to you sir. You are an honorable man and I am glad to see such in this day. I hope you take my words in the spirit in which they were intended. I may be a bit terse but I think candy coating is about as smart as shooting yourself in the foot. A word on how to treat these rascals and old Hindu Proverb:

“If you feed a serpent milk you only increase its venom.”

God Bless and Thank You for Your Service,
Dennis Jackson
________________________________________
From: jrjassoc@earthlink.net
To: jrj@combatveteransforcongress.org
Subject: Republicans Congressional Leaders Giving Obama “Unconstitutional” Authority to By-Pass Congress in Approving Treaties
Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 00:34:40 -0700
On Tuesday the Republican leadership will encourage the House and Senate to vote to pass the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) Initiative; the bill is known as “Trade Promotion Authority” or TPA—no one has even seen thousands of pages of Obama’s Secret Trade Bill —now the Republican leadership is saying “we will have to pass it to see what is in it”. The Republican leaders are planning to give Obama “Carte Blanche” to enter into “Fast-Track Trade Treaties” in “total secrecy” eventually with future countries such as Cuba, Iran, China, Russia, etc., because Obama will be able to add other countries to this agreement, which is UNCONSTITUTIONAL; it “short circuits the legislative process” which requires a two thirds majority vote of the US Senate to approve Treaties. Republican leaders are planning to give Obama unprecedented power to curtail Congressional checks and balances on Treaties, even while they have been watching him for 6 ½ years, violate Federal Immigration Laws, the US Constitution, and Freedom of Religion for members of the US Armed Forces.

The TPA Bill has many damaging provisions, among them, it will allow millions of foreign workers to be given visas to enter the US at a time when 104 million Americans are unemployed, the TPA will open the way to import dangerous foods products that will negatively affect the health of unsuspecting Americans, according to Congressman Alan Grayson (R-FL-9) it will ship millions of American jobs overseas, it will “force the US” to abide by UN & EPA business destructive unproven climate change regulations, will “force the US” to abide by the UN’s Small Arms Trade Treaty(ATT) which was voted down by the US Senate & violates the 2nd Amendment’s provision that allows American citizens to purchase and sell their small arms, and it will force the US Congress to abide by every UN Treaty, undermining the sovereignty of the United States.

The TPA initially embraces 12 nations including the US, Peru, Chile, Mexico, Canada, Japan, Vietnam, Australia, Brunei, Darussalam, Malaysia, New Zealand, and Singapore; however there is a provision in the agreement that allows Obama to add other countries in the future, like Cuba, China, Iran, Russia, Venezuela, Libya, Syria, etc.. The TPA is a secret Obama Law, like the secret Obamacare Law, that will allow the free flow of Mexican, South American, and Asian workers to enter the US (not only will the southern border remain wide open, but the US will no longer have any borders “at all”, or any barriers to entry), the millions of new entering foreign workers will willingly work for exceptionally lower wages under substandard conditions. Details in thousands of unread pages of this law have not been read or worked out, yet the Republican leadership is giving Obama “Fast-Track” authority to make any and all decisions in all and every treaty with the initial 12 countries and as many additional countries Obama decides on in the future, without Senate ratification (all future trade treaties will no longer be subject to the Constitutional requirement of a two-thirds majority of the US Senate for ratification). Republican leaders are enhancing Obama’s control of foreign policy, while making the Congress irrelevant.

In order to deal with the millions of Americans who will be losing their jobs because of the TPA Bill, under the radar, the Republican leadership of the House and Senate is crafting a bill to go along with TPA, known as the Trade Adjustment Assistance Bill to be passed on the same day the TPA Bill is passed—-it should more appropriately be entitled the “Put all American Workers on Welfare Bill Because of the TPA Bill”. That new Trade Adjustment Assistance Bill specifically targets workers and farmers who lose their livelihood, because of this “Stupid TPA Bill” being promoted by the Republican leadership in Congress, which will result in millions of Americans losing their jobs because of what Obama will authorize in secret “Trade Treaties” with foreign countries, that will be devastating to the labor movement and jobs in the United States.

Once Obama uses his “Fast-Track” authority to agree with UN Regulations, Congress would not be able to modify or amend those TPP provision entered into solely by Obama himself, without Congressional involvement at all, and Obama’s individual decision would have the force of the “law of the land” under the US Constitution. This proposed “living agreement” by Republican leaders in Congress will seriously undercut the re-employment of 104 million unemployed Americans, because as a “living agreement”, it would leave the southern border of the US to be even more porous than it is today, and will allow Obama to change immigration policy “at will” without Congressional approval—those proposed provisions of the TPA are absolutely UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Republican leaders are approving the massive immigration of millions of Illegal Aliens from Mexico and from 12 other countries.

The Republican leadership will surrender its authority to write Federal Immigration Laws by passing TPA, thus enabling Obama to use his pen to simply authorize the importation of millions of non-Christian Asian, Japanese, Malaysian, Brunei, Darussalam, Singapore, and eventually Chinese and Iranian workers. According to the Greek Catholic Relief Agency, for over 6 ½ years, Obama has refused to allow any of the 300,000 Syrian and Assyrian Christian refugees in the Middle East to enter the US, while Canada has been resettling those Syrian and Assyrian Christians. Obama’s has only been allowing the entry of Muslim refugees thru the UN Muslim Refugees Resettlement Program, and has been intentionally excluded Christians. Now the Republican leadership is giving Obama the right to bring in millions of Asian immigrant workers who are also not of the Christian faith.

Obama has been resettling hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees in 195 cities across the nation without elected state and city officials being provided with specific details on who is being resettled in their cities, and without informing them who is going to pay for the health care, resettlement costs, transportation costs, education of refugee children, the welfare costs of refugee families, food stamps, and housing costs for hundreds of thousands of those Muslim refugees being brought into their communities.

Supporters of this aggressive secret Obama initiative include Democratic Progressives in Congress, Democratic Congressman Danny K. Davis who received an award from the Communist Party in 2012, David Cortright who is Obama’s close Chicago associate on the Committee for a Sane Nuclear policy (SANE), Communist Tom Hayden who is a member of “Progressives for Obama”, Democratic Congressmen in the “Hanoi Lobby” who are aggressively supporting normalization of relations with Cuba, Cora Weiss who is a strong supporter of Communism & a member of the Anti-War Movement, Adam Hersh from the liberal Center for American Progress, the left of center liberal media establishment, and the Democratic Progressive Caucus. Those Leftists, Marxists, Progressives, and Communists, have been getting the very aggressive support of the Republican leadership in the House and Senate, who have been working with the Democratic Progressive Caucus in Congress to pass the TPA (the 70 member Caucus includes Socialists, Progressives, Marxists, and Communists members of Congress),
.
The AFL-CIO Unions are on solid footing in their opposition to this “Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority”. Responsible and clear thinking Democrats in Congress are against giving Obama “Fast-Track” authority with this labor damaging bill’ it will allow millions of new workers to enter the US, will force the Congress to abide by environmental protection standards that will restrict business development & job growth in the US, will allow currency manipulation, and will allow millions of new Mexican Illegal Alien workers to legally enter & work in the United States. The Republican leaders in Congress should use some degree of “Common Sense” and wait for 19 months, before they give the occupant in the Oval Office any trade promotion authority, and only if that trade authority is very limited. Hopefully the new occupant of the Oval Office, unlike Obama, will be a pro-American president who supports and abides by the provisions of the US Constitution.

Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions has alerted the American people about the dangers of the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) speeding through Congress and the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal that TPA would help push. Senator S essions said, “The president has circumvented Congress on immigration with serial regularity. But the TPA would yield new power to the executive to alter admissions while subtracting Congressional checks against those actions,” he said in a “critical alert” dispatched by Senator Session’s office. Senator Sessions and several outside groups said Obama could change immigration policies between trading partners “at will” without any Congressional oversight. “The plain language of TPA provides avenues for Obama and trading partners to facilitate the expanded movement of foreign workers into the U.S. — including issuing visitor visas that are used as worker visas,” said Senator Sessions. The bases of that charge is a phrase in TPA calling it a “living agreement.” Sessions said that means that they can be changed after Congress approves them, and also that countries can be added in the future, including China. “It leaves it open for a president to change it without Congressional approval,” warned Jessica M. Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies for the Center for Immigration Studies. “Congress should not surrender its authority to write immigration laws to either the executive branch, to trade negotiators, and definitely not to international trade tribunals,” she added.

The Republican Leadership of the House and Senate are planning to give Obama free rein with “Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority”, with full the knowledge of Obama’s very dangerous anti-American track record, and his pro-Marxist/Communist initiatives. Even the most casual observer of Obama’s dangerous foreign policy initiatives can’t help but understand that, in the past 6 ½ years, Obama foreign policy decisions have consistently favored the enemies of the Republic like Radical Islamic Terrorists in Libya, Communist China, Communist North Vietnam, Radical Islamic Terrorists in Iran, Radical Islamic Terrorist in the Muslim Brotherhood, Chavez’s Socialist Venezuela, Castro’s Communist Cuba, and Putin’s anti-American Russia—they have all collectively and repeatedly expressed their intent to destroy the Republic as it was created by the Founding Fathers.

A newly elected pro-American Patriotic US President would judiciously apply trade promotion authority negotiations by entering into separate Trade Treaties with 12 Asian and South American countries, while abiding by the provision of the US Constitution that requires a two thirds majority vote of the US Senate to approve each treaty. The American people need to rise up and oppose Obama’s secret TPA Bill by calling their Senate representatives at (202) 224-3121 and by sending FaxGrams to their Senate and Congressional representatives telling them to reject Obama’s “Fast-Track” authority which will permit Obama to enter into and force the Congress to abide by all UN Treaties, and will also permit Obama to enter into future secret treaties with countries such as Cuba, China, Iran, Russia, Venezuela, Iraq, Syria, etc. This most recent initiative by Republican leadership in the House and Senate, follows their inept funding of Obamacare, illegal Immigration, and Obama’s wide open southern border policy thru September 2015, is approaching insanity and would be akin to allowing the fox into the chicken coop.

Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
-Isaiah 6:8

To:
The Honorable Citizens of the United States, the House of Representatives, the Senate and Justices

Dear Souls:

I am delivering this message to inform you of a dire situation within our country. We, the People of the United States have been besieged by those who think so little of us as to consider us their prey. We are scorned, made light of and our system of election has even been accosted by those who would steal by fraud and deceit our very birthright. I cannot say that every person so situated is part of the faction that seeks to unilaterally place themselves above the law, without authority and to the detriment of the People as a whole. As human beings who are lawful citizens of these United States we are entitled to be fairly treated and our elected officials be in obedience to the Law they swore to uphold.

It both saddens and infuriates me to witness the destruction of our country by those who would make themselves our masters. We are not their servants, their slaves or surfs. We not only have the right to be free, we have the duty to demand and to exercise the mechanisms with which to free ourselves and the responsibility to ourselves and our posterity to make it so. But we cannot exercise that right and duty in the darkness of ignorance, we must be informed. We must understand the foundation of our system. To do this we must consult not those who pervert the Great Charter of our system of government but those who conceived and put this government to order. Those who bled and died lost their fortunes and families are the authority; the ones whose souls could not condone servitude are the voices that we must rediscover, not those who pretend and usurp.

I am sorry to say we have criminals in office, not by my word or act but their own. If it be their ignorance then they have this opportunity to correct it, if not they expose themselves for the traitors to the People they are.

CRIMINALS IN OFFICE

The legislature and others in government service or office have erected for themselves an elite status not authorized by the Constitution. As such it cannot be authorized by any law made in pursuance to the Constitution. Harry Reid says it’s the Law of the Land get over it, we say ok the Law of the Land. O’l Harry is quick to use the Law against the mere citizen but not on himself. Let’s examine the Law of the Land and just how these elites have made themselves lords over us.

We now live in a country where the people who make the law do not obey it. There is no authority to treat everyone differently or put one class of people over another. There is no grant of privilege by the Law of the Land to allow those who hold office any more right that the rest. A brief look into the basic law, the Constitution, and its history and intent will show any such notion to be completely without substance either inferred or expressly stated. Neither wealthy politicians of the right or the socialist exhibit any difference in this one idea.

The wealthy claim their elite status is due to their superior acumen in financial and economic affairs, while the socialists claim their elite status is due to their support of the down trodden and disadvantaged. But the common theme of them both is that they should be entitled to a status which is above their fellow. They grant themselves exemption from the same rules they enforce on others because they occupy a public office. The problem is that there is no such grant of authority and the status is one that is created for their sole benefit. In fact the overwhelming evidence is that there is to be no such distinction.
The delegates while debating the Constitution, the Framers, consistently put forth the effort to make sure no aristocratic class was set up or developed through service in government or holding office. In other words, no elite ruling class was intended. In fact the arrangement of and separation of powers and division of delegated authority was intended to prevent the formation of an aristocracy. This they were so intent upon it surfaced in the debates time and again. From Elliott’s Debates, the Notes of Madison during the Convention:
“We should remember that the people never act from reason alone. The rich will take
the advantage of their passions, and make these the instruments for oppressing them.
The result of the contest will be a violent aristocracy, or a more violent despotism.
The schemes of the rich will be favored by the extent of the country. The people in
such distant parts cannot communicate and act in concert. They will be the dupes of
those who have more knowledge and intercourse. The only security against
encroachments will be a select and sagacious body of men, instituted to watch against them on all sides.”

Mr. MASON. “……Should the latter have the power of giving away the people’s money, they might soon forget the source from whence they received it. We might soon have an aristocracy.”

“Mr. BUTLER. There is no right of which the people are more jealous than that of
suffrage. Abridgments of it tend to the same revolution as in Holland, where they
have at length thrown all power into the hands of the senates, who fill up vacancies
themselves, and form a rank aristocracy.”

“Col. MASON ……. His idea of an aristocracy was, that it was the government of the few over the many. An aristocratic body, like the screw in mechanics, working its way by slow degrees, and holding fast whatever it gains, should ever be suspected of an encroaching tendency. The purse-strings should never be put into its hands.”

Madison gives us several methods of creating this aristocracy. The chief of these methods is for the legislature to control the electors or the candidates. This brings us to mind of targeting the conservative groups, like the Tea Party, by the IRS. When we see the lax enforcement of the laws and congress’ lack of energy in pursuing and punishing the offenders we begin to wonder why. Certainly the power of the two major political parties and the apparent cooperation of the main stream republicans to defeat outsiders we are left with at least a question in our minds. But the example represents mischief’s want to exclude those who are not of like mind and further consolidate the power in the hands of the few, the elite.

Mr. MADISON was opposed to the section, as vesting an improper and dangerous
power in the legislature. The qualifications of electors and elected were fundamental
articles in a republican government, and ought to be fixed by the Constitution. If the
legislature could regulate those of either, it can by degrees subvert the Constitution. A
republic may be converted into an aristocracy or oligarchy, as well by limiting the
number capable of being elected as the number authorized to elect. In all cases where
the representatives of the people will have a personal interest distinct from that of
their constituents, there was the same reason for being jealous of them as there was
for relying on them with full confidence, when they had a common interest. This was
one of the former cases. It was as improper as to allow them to fix their own wages, or
their own privileges. It was a power, also, which might be made subservient to the
views of one faction against another. Qualifications founded on artificial distinctions
may be devised by the stronger in order to keep out partizans of a weaker faction.

Madison’s Notes on the Debates

The continued persistence of the IRS in targeting conservative groups and the proposed new “rule change” further exhibit both the use of the bureaucracy to harass a political group. The IRS’ informal attack against conservative groups that are attempting to exert a lawful right, to freely associate on political subjects has been directly challenged by a bureaucratic agency. How convenient for the politicians. They have no control over the creature they have created. It is allowed to run amok, exactly as Madison gave example to, and harass a weaker faction. Never mind that free speech was exactly political speech during the Colonial period. Without any meaningful act of oversight by the legislature we have evidence again of the mindset of this “elite” class to preserve itself and position. If you add the support of the Chamber of Commerce and their explicit stated goal of spending tens of millions on candidates who support immigration reform, the Trans Pacific Partnership and the other “business friendly” agenda of the Chamber, we see a continuation of the same. The votes of the people become less and less meaningful and the “elite” secure their position by any means available, legal or otherwise. Don’t forget there are Democrats who want this Trans Pacific Partnership, just like Democrat legislators Waters and Pelosi voting to bail out the banks on the backs of the American People because they or family members had interests in the banks. Of course they are the “elite” they deserve it…..

The real question is, do the “elite” have some special privilege, secured by the Law of the Land?? Do they have the right, the authority to manipulate the system of elections, the economy and the government in order secure to themselves and their friends privilege that the People as a whole do not??? Of course we must consult the Law of the Land, remember what Harry said, in order to find out. We have seen the intention of the Framers when they were in debate discussing the Constitution. They were of a mind, so the records show, that no “aristocracy” was to be condoned and that they were initiating specific steps to block the formation of an “elite”.

The Framer’s line of reasoning continues into the Federalist Papers. The propensity of the “elite” to grant themselves special exemptions from the laws they wrote was addressed specifically. The writings of John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison have been use over 1500 times to interpret the Constitution by the legislature and the courts. Madison states it best in Federalist 57. Madison places a great amount of emphasis on favoritism in the making and executing laws and makes it perfectly clear that it is the citizen’s duty through his vigilant manly spirit which is the guardian and intolerant force against such abuses of the legislature as well as the proper function of a Republican system:
“I will add, as a fifth circumstance in the situation of the House of Representatives, restraining them from oppressive measures, that they can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny. “
The Federalist, Paper 57, James Madison
Madison continues on to denounce the practice of elitist abuses in regard to the law and pronounces it the path to tyranny. He states plain language that the true and intended operation of the system “the nature of just and constitutional laws” was the safeguard but availing that it would be the American Spirit and strength as men and women.
“If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America — a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it.
If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the legislature, as well as on the people, the people will be prepared to tolerate anything but liberty.”
Federalist 57
So Madison states the “whole system” was intended to be a bar against favoring any person or group or people, especially an elite legislature of government/ruling class. A debased spirit that tolerates the legislature making laws for others it does not obey. Madison’s explanation is very enlightening. How far have we come to allow this to happen??? Shall we not be ashamed and unworthy of the liberty so hard won by blood, fortune and sorrow that we may be defeated as a debased spirit. Are we so debased of our own right of being that we gladly shackle ourselves to the yoke of oppression???

Nowhere in the Constitution is there any authority granted by the People to the officers, officials and employees of the government to violate any law by virtue of their office. The legislature does not get to pass judgment on itself for the violations of laws, only violations of virtue and ethical infractions. Article I Section 3 Clause 7 granting authority for impeachment only involves the removal from office. The offenders are still liable for criminal acts:

“Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office,
and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”

Article I Section 3 Clause 7

The Constitution specifically states that the legislators are immune from arrest from and to sessions and are not liable for things said on the floor of their respective assemblies. But that is all the privilege they get. Treason, felonies and Breach of the Peace are expressly stated as charges they are liable for without reservation. Remember the term felonies….

Here is the exact text of the Constitution:
“They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”
Article I Section 6 Clause 2, United States Constitution
The Constitution also states that there are to be:
“No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States….”,
Article I Section 9 Clause 8.
The concept has come through a clear line of reasoning form the Debates of the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and finally in express terms in the body of the Constitution itself. This is the limit of authorization for the legislature and their very specific and limited immunity. We find no enlargement of privilege that even remotely allows the elected officials the right to violate the laws, either those in existence or even those they create. Such a law is immediately unconstitutional and without authority to make from the outset. It is an overreach of authority, one they do not have even in the plain language of the document itself. Where no authority is given and it is expressly forbidden any attempt to enact of even solicit such a mere piece of legislation is a violation of the Constitution and the oaths they all took.
Now look at the law that the politicians are violating every day the law they would change to dis- enfranchise you with by creating, with a stoke of a pen, a voting block so large that the People, the rightful citizens, would be overwhelmed and their very right to a meaningful vote be stolen:

Federal Immigration and Nationality Act
8 USC Section 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)
“Any person who . . . encourages or induces an alien to . . . reside . . .
knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such . . . residence is . . .
in violation of law, shall be punished as provided . . . for each alien in
respect to whom such a violation occurs . . . fined under title 18 . . .
imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.”

Section 274 felonies under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, INA
274A(a)(1)(A):
A person (including a group of persons, business, organization, or local
government) commits a federal felony when she or he:

* assists an alien s/he should reasonably know is illegally in the U.S. or who
lacks employment authorization, by transporting, sheltering, or assisting him
or her to obtain employment, or

* encourages that alien to remain in the U.S. by referring him or her to an
employer or by acting as employer or agent for an employer in any way, or

* knowingly assists illegal aliens due to personal convictions.
Just how many politicians have spoken at pro “immigration” rallies, how many town and city councils have created “sanctuary cities” or even states, all felons. Now remember representatives and senators may be arrested for felonies without regard to the limited immunity, even while in session.
Not only have these criminals committed felonies for encouraging illegal aliens (Yes they are illegal aliens not illegal immigrants, the crooks use immigrant or immigration to make is seem less lawless.) People who invade our borders are aliens and they are illegal. They have never entered the immigration process. They never intended to enter the path to be lawful citizens. They have intentionally broken the law of the federal government, the state governments and something called the Law of Nations. Calling a lemon and apple does not make it an apple……
The example the whole “immigration” thing is an example of the song and dance these varmints go through to pull the wool over your eyes. They will not be above board and be forthright, they are afraid of what would happen if you Citizens knew the truth. Most are attorneys so ignorance of the law should never be a defense, it isn’t to us. There is no privilege to ignorance to the Constitution. If they took the oath they should know what they are signing on for.
Did I mention that you as a citizen, having knowledge of a Felony being or has been committed you can arrest the perpetrator????? Yep all legal like and in some states you may use force…. Remember there is no immunity for felonies for the legislators. So don’t be shy, they will not when they impose their hypocritical garbage on you. You can get more details at Google on citizen’s arrest. Do it right if you decide to. Don’t forget tell your friends, make it a party. So here is notice to them and to you. Tell the Criminals we don’t want any more criminals in office.
God Bless and Good Hunting,
Publius

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
— Thomas Jefferson

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
— Thomas Jefferson

“To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
— Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property – until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

It was refreshing to see meteorologists apologize for their dire — and wrong — predictions of an unprecedented snowstorm that they had said would devastate the northeast.

It was a big storm, but the Northeast has seen lots of big snowstorms before and will probably see lots of big snowstorms again. That’s called winter.

Unfortunately, we’re not likely to hear similar apologies from those who’ve promoted “global warming” hysteria for years, in defiance of data that fail to fit their climate models.

What is at issue is not whether there is “climate change” — which nobody has ever denied — but whether the specific predictions of the “global warming” crowd as to the direction and magnitude of worldwide temperature changes are holding up over the years.

The ultimate test of any theoretical model is not how loudly it is proclaimed but how well it fits the facts. Climate models that have an unimpressive record of fitting the facts of the past or the present are hardly a reason for us to rely on them for the future.

Putting together a successful model — of anything — is a lot more complicated than identifying which factors affect which outcomes. When many factors are involved, which is common, the challenge is to determine precisely how those factors interact with each other. That is a lot easier said than done when it comes to climate.

Everyone can agree, for example, that the heat of the sunlight is greater in the tropics than in the temperate zones or near the poles. But, the highest temperatures ever recorded in Asia, Africa, North America or South America were all recorded outside — repeat, OUTSIDE — the tropics.

No part of Europe is in the tropics, but record temperatures in European cities like Athens and Seville have been higher than the highest temperatures ever recorded in cities virtually right on the equator, such as Singapore in Asia or Nairobi in Africa.

None of this disproves the scientific fact that sunlight is hotter in the tropics. But it does indicate that there are other factors which go into temperatures on Earth.

It is not only the heat of the sunlight but its duration that determines how much heat builds up. The sun shines on the equator about 12 hours a day all year long. But in the temperate zones, the sun shines more hours during the summer — almost 15 hours a day at the latitude of Seville or Athens.

[For a set of the scientific fact, go to the first post on this blog “The Polar Ice Cap is Shrinking”, which, btw, NASA satellite photos show that the Polar Ice Cap is in fact getting LARGER at an alarming degree, when one considers the fishing grounds that it is endangering. Reference works are in the 2008 post, the first on this blog.]

The Progressive Racial Narrative and Its Beneficiaries
January 11, 2015 7:41 am / Leave a Comment / victorhanson
Debunking the lies about race in America.

by Bruce S. Thornton // FrontPage Magazine

al_sharpton_speaking_reuters-450x337A recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll reveals that nearly 6 in 10 people believe race relations are bad, with 23% saying they are “very bad.” The causes of these perceptions are many, including nationally publicized police killings of two black men, disorderly and violent demonstrators ignoring the facts of the cases to brand the police “racist,” a lazy media neglecting to dig up and then publicize those facts, and a president, Attorney General, and mayor of New York willing to exploit and widen racial division and consort with hustlers like Al Sharpton.

What we see at work in these events is the long established racial narrative in which endemic white racism accounts for all the ills that afflict black people. Not just individual whites harbor this original sin, but our educational, political, social, justice, and economic institutions are racist as well, favoring white people and hence conferring on them “white skin privilege.” The wide scope of racism means that no matter how well meaning towards blacks, or how socially and economically disadvantaged, individual whites cannot purge themselves of racism. Only radical transformation of all our institutions can redeem America from racism.

This fairytale regularly ignores numerous facts. The decline in black poverty, for example, calls into question the notion that there is “institutional racism” warping the economy. Thanks to postwar economic growth, the black poverty rate decreased from 87% in 1940 to 28% today. Similar improvement can be seen in the growth of the black middle class and increases in black home ownership. And the claim that blacks are shut out of the job market is hard to square with the fact that millions of illegal aliens are working in this country, and immigrant entrepreneurs are creating small businesses.

Similarly, the idea that the police are an “occupying army” targeting blacks, a cliché we heard repeatedly during the recent demonstrations over the police shootings in Ferguson and Brooklyn, is exploded by simple statistics that show about 200 blacks a year––most shot while possessing a gun or knife––are killed by police officers, while almost 6,000 a year are killed by other blacks. It’s a strange “army” that endangers itself in order to protect and save the lives of those it’s allegedly “occupying.”

Then there’s the “voter suppression” charge, the assertion that attempts by states to ensure only legal voters cast ballots really are designed to discourage black voters. The increasing numbers of black people registering and turning out to vote belie this claim, as does the much greater number of blacks holding elected office. Indeed, in 2012 the proportion of black voters turning out in the national election was greater than that of white.

The fact is, by global standards the largest number of politically free and well off blacks is in the United States. As for those blacks still mired in dysfunctional communities filled with crime, violence, unemployment, drugs, and fatherless children, those evils do not reflect white racism or a “legacy of slavery.” Rather, they can be traced to what Michael Gerson called the “soft bigotry of low expectations,” the culture of dependence and the erosion of self-reliance and self-responsibility created by government handouts and the liberal narrative of endemic white racism that demeans blacks as helpless victims incapable of improving their lives or being accountable for their actions, since through no fault of their own they are imprisoned by “institutional racism.” And don’t forget progressive government policies that inhibit economic growth, historically the great engine for improving black lives, and the culture-wide degradation of sexual mores and the collapse of traditional marriage.

So cui bono, as the lawyers say, who benefits from this narrative? The federal and state entitlement industry, of course, whose agencies and bureaucrats profit from having a permanent underclass of clients. So too the Democratic Party, which buys black votes with promises to keep the transfers and set-asides flowing. So too the racial grievance industry, that gang of activists, academics, ethnic studies professors, “diversity” consultants, and shakedown artists like Al Sharpton who use black misery as leverage for more power and pelf. So too the leftover leftists, who find in racial discord a weapon for attacking the country that kicked their cherished collectivist ideology into the dustbin of history.

Most black Americans aren’t invested in this narrative. They’re too busy working and raising their families. But let’s not forget the role this narrative plays in camouflaging the privilege of those millions of blacks who live better and have more social clout than millions of white people. By ignoring their economic advantages and brandishing their scars from alleged racist wounds, many in the black upper-middle and upper class, particularly those in education, sports, entertainment, and government, can gain vicarious victim-privilege and hence social leverage. Thus through a spurious claim to racial brotherhood, they plunder and spend the capital of black suffering many of them have never experienced. They then can enjoy a social cachet and a whiff of exotic authenticity that sets them apart from their bland white counterparts, and that gives them an air of gnostic racial wisdom embodied in the cant phrase, “It’s a black thing, you wouldn’t understand.”

The phoniness of this ploy can be seen in the various claims well off blacks make about their personal experiences of racism. In the 90s it was the epidemic of racist cabdrivers refusing to pick up black passengers. That one faded when research showed that many of the cabdrivers were themselves black, and were prudently avoiding the murder and mayhem they often experienced at the hands of black passengers. Then there was the “driving while black” trope, which focused on the disproportionate number of blacks pulled over for traffic violations like speeding. Department of Justice investigations ended up with sanctions imposed on states for “racial profiling.” But the study done of drivers on the New Jersey Turnpike, a much-publicized case of “profiling,” revealed that while blacks were 25% of all speeders, they were 23% of those pulled over. That is, they were underrepresented, not overrepresented, among those stopped.

More recently we have heard affluent, privileged blacks like Eric Holder, and the white father of a half-black son, New York mayor Bill De Blasio, indulge another hackneyed trope, the “talk.” This is the conversation black fathers must have with their sons in order to “train them to be very careful when they have . . . an encounter with a police officer,” as De Blasio said, lest they give a policeman a pretext for the violence incited by their racism. The irony of this claim is that if reflects just how privileged these children are, for people who grow up in the dangerous neighborhoods the police must frequent drink that wisdom in with their mother’s milk. Worse yet, it assumes that a white kid who resists arrest, fights a cop, curses him, or otherwise challenges his authority will be treated with kid gloves. I’ll have to see some hard data before I believe that. The reality is, the biggest danger to a young black man today is not a policeman, but another young black man.

No doubt some blacks have experienced rude cops or cabdrivers, or have been subjected to the other evidence of racism like those Obama claims to have experienced, such as women clutching their purses more closely in an elevator, or locking their car doors at the approach of a black man. But even if true, these slights don’t amount to “systemic racism.” They more likely reflect prejudices, many acquired through unpleasant experiences. If you want to see what real racism looks like, visit this site and peruse its collection of lynching postcards. You’ll see just how much progress has been made over the last half-century.

But facts or even common sense don’t matter when it comes to a narrative with so many beneficiaries, the biggest one being Barack Obama, who never would have become president without it. The saddest part of all this, however, is that the black people truly suffering today aren’t on that list. In the racial narrative, black lives don’t matter.

Once again Hillary Clinton has given the Republicans some suicidal soundbites they should stash away for 2016 in the likely event she is the Democratic candidate for president. A review of some of her recent statements reveals that Clinton is not just entitled, money-grubbing, unlikeable, unpleasant, and unaccomplished. Nor do they just show that she is a political dunce who has obviously learned nothing from her politically brilliant husband. More seriously, they expose her commitment to failed ideas and dangerous delusions.

First there was the “What difference at this point does it make!” she practically shrieked to Senator Ron Johnson during a January 2013 hearing on the Benghazi debacle that unfolded on September 11, 2012. Clinton had told the grieving parents of the victims during the transfer of remains ceremony at Andrews Air Force base that they died because of “an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.” Four Americans, including an ambassador, had been murdered on her watch, but she refused to explain to the Senate why she blamed the hapless maker of a YouTube video, who spent a year in jail.

This evasion is significant, for within hours of the attack it was clear that it had been a carefully coordinated, well-planned assault, not the spontaneous reaction to a video. Soon it also became known that ambassador Stevens had repeatedly requested increased security, but had been denied by officials in the State and Defense Departments. As Secretary of State, Clinton was ultimately responsible for those decisions made by State, as well as for the astonishing failure to notice the escalating violence in the months before the attacks, or the significance of the anniversary of 9/11, or the immediate evidence that the attack was not a spontaneous reaction to a video that had been on YouTube for weeks.

But in her response to all this evidence of negligence and post facto political spin, all she could do was indignantly declare that all these failures were irrelevant. In 2016, this footage of the arm-waving, shrill Clinton transparently trying to misdirect the Senators and the citizens from her patent incompetence should be played and replayed in political ads.

Next came the more recent revelation of her embarrassing economic ignorance, shameless pandering to her left-wing base. At a campaign event in October, attended also by lefty heartthrob Elizabeth Warren, Clinton lectured, “Don’t let anybody, don’t let anybody tell you that, ah, you know, it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs. You know that old theory, trickle-down economics. That has been tried, that has failed. It has failed rather spectacularly.”

Somehow Clinton missed the 1980s, when economic and tax policies that encouraged business investment led to spectacular growth. As the Laffer Center explains,

“According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, 1982-1999 was one continuous mega-economic expansion. In fact, as it stretched into 2007, this 25 Year Boom saw a tripling in the net wealth of U.S. households and businesses from $20 trillion in 1981 to $60 trillion by 2007. When adjusted for inflation, more wealth was created in this 25-year boom than in the previous 200 years. This sustained economic growth is not only impressive on its own, but even more astonishing as it compares to the period immediately preceding it. In the 10 years from 1972-1982, recessions were deep and recoveries were short. In fact, throughout American history, the nation’s economy has been in recession or depression roughly one-third of the time. But from 1981-2005, the annual growth rate of real gross domestic product (GDP) in the U.S. was 3.4 percent per year, and 3.8 percent per year during the 1983-1989 Reagan expansion alone.”

Compare that to the performance of Obama’s economic policies over the last 6 years, when intrusive regulatory regimes like Dodd-Frank and a runaway EPA, Obamacare’s highjacking of the health-care industry, the trillion-dollar stimulus squandered on crony socialist projects like “green energy,” and the anti-business rhetoric of Obama’s “you didn’t build that,” have all led to sluggish economic growth, metastasizing debt, declining income for the middle class, an explosion in entitlement spending, and nearly 20 million unemployed and under-employed.

Contrary to Clinton’s Keynesian superstitions and dirigiste magical thinking, what has “failed spectacularly” has been progressive economic policies that think parasitic politicians and unaccountable government bureaucrats can manage a complex, dynamic economic system better than a free market that incentivizes people to actually build businesses that create jobs and increase wealth. And just as spectacularly incompetent is Hillary’s political tin ear that lets her make such a statement just to curry favor with a narrow base of anti-capitalist fundamentalists, when she surely must know that come the 2016 presidential election, those words will be pinned to the Obama albatross sure to be hanging around her neck.

Finally, there is the bizarre statement at Georgetown last week about improving our foreign policy with what she called “smart power”: “Using every possible tool and partner to advance peace and security. Leaving no one on the sidelines. Showing respect even for one’s enemies. Trying to understand, in so far as psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective and point of view. Helping to define the problems, determine the solutions.” She then added a banal cliché of modern feminism, suggesting that the lack of women negotiators and signatories was responsible for the failure of many peace treaties. After all, women are naturally more empathetic and sensitive to others’ “point of view,” one of those Victorian stereotypes that feminists used to tell us were sexist insults.

These comments embody everything that is wrong with a modern foreign policy based on Kantian delusions about a global “harmony of interests,” the notion that all peoples are just like us and want all the same goods such as peace, prosperity, political freedom, and respect for human rights. If they behave differently, it’s because they just don’t know these goods are in their best interests, or they have been traumatized by history, particularly the depredations of Western colonialism, imperialism, and capitalist exploitation, which are the causes of their violent aggression and brutality. Thus if we “understand” and “empathize” with the roots of our enemies’ behavior, they will see the light and abandon aggression and tyranny.

This is the same delusion that Obama based his foreign policy on, as evidenced by his infamous “apology tour,” on which he donned the hair shirt of Western sin and groveled before foreign audiences. It’s the application to foreign affairs of the two-bit psychologizing that dominates the public schools, where boosting self-esteem and “empathizing” with punks and bullies are the favored mechanisms for teaching and civilizing young people. It utterly lacks any understanding of the tragic constants of human nature and the wisdom accumulated by the human race since the ancient Greeks and Hebrews––that, as Machiavelli said, “all men are bad and that they will use their malignity of mind every time they have the opportunity.”

For all her alleged foreign policy toughness, Clinton’s philosophy embodies the bad utopian ideals that have enabled much of the disorder afflicting the world since their spectacular failure in preventing World War I. We hear the same delusions in the words of Neville Chamberlain after Hitler’s Anschluss of Austria in March 1938, when he told the House of Commons, “We should take any and every opportunity to try to remove any genuine and legitimate grievance that may exist,” and then imagined telling Hitler, “The best thing you can do is to tell us exactly what you want for your Sudeten Deutsch.” Such blind “empathy” and “understanding” and “respect” for Germany’s “grievances,” of course, in 6 months culminated in the debacle of Munich and the devastating sequel of World War II.

Contrary to Clinton and Obama, enemies like Vladimir Putin, ISIS, Bashar al Assad, Hamas, Hezbollah, Boko Haram, the Ayatollah Khamenei, and Xi Jinping are not the global village’s wayward teenagers “acting out” because they don’t know their own best interests and suffer from insufficient self-esteem and “respect.” They are hard, brutal men, vicious and ruthless, who know exactly what they want, and who possess beliefs alien to Western ideals like liberal democracy, human rights, tolerance, and a preference for diplomatic words and “mutual understanding and respect.” In their “perspective” and “point of view,” violence is a tool of international relations, and a legitimate instrument for achieving their aims and interests. And they have nothing but contempt for our schoolmarmish empathy and respect, which they correctly interpret as civilizational weakness and a failure of morale. All they respect is force. That’s the most important truth we need to “understand.”

These 3 statements reveal political beliefs and character flaws that should automatically disqualify Hillary Clinton from being president. And even if we attribute them to rank ambition and venal opportunism rather than sincere belief, their sheer political stupidity and lack of prudence bespeak a mind and character unfit for leading the most powerful country on the planet.

As well as I can judge, the general attitude of Americans who are at all interested in foreign affairs is one of astonishment, coupled with distaste, displeasure, or horror, according to the individual observer’s capacity for emotional excitement. Perhaps I ought to shade this statement a little in order to keep on the safe side, and say that this is the most generally expressed attitude.

All our institutional voices — the press, pulpit, forum — are pitched to the note of amazed indignation at one or another phase of the current goings-on in Europe and Asia. This leads me to believe that our people generally are viewing with wonder as well as repugnance certain conspicuous actions of various foreign States; for instance, the barbarous behavior of the German State towards some of its own citizens; the merciless despotism of the Soviet Russian State; the ruthless imperialism of the Italian State; the “betrayal of CzechoSlovakia” by the British and French States; the savagery of the Japanese State; the brutishness of the Chinese State’s mercenaries; and so on, here or there, all over the globe — this sort of thing is showing itself to be against our people’s grain, and they are speaking out about it in wrathful surprise.

I am cordially with them on every point but one. I am with them in repugnance, horror, indignation, disgust, but not in astonishment. The history of the State being what it is, and its testimony being as invariable and eloquent as it is, I am obliged to say that the naive tone of surprise wherewith our people complain of these matters strikes me as a pretty sad reflection on their intelligence. Suppose someone were impolite enough to ask them the gruff question, “Well, what do you expect?” — what rational answer could they give? I know of none.

Polite or impolite, that is just the question which ought to be put every time a story of State villainy appears in the news. It ought to be thrown at our public day after day, from every newspaper, periodical, lecture platform, and radio station in the land; and it ought to be backed up by a simple appeal to history, a simple invitation to look at the record. The British State has sold the Czech State down the river by a despicable trick; very well, be as disgusted and angry as you like, but don’t be astonished; what would you expect? — just take a look at the British State’s record! The German State is persecuting great masses of its people, the Russian State is holding a purge, the Italian State is grabbing territory, the Japanese State is buccaneering along the Asiatic Coast; horrible, yes, but for Heaven’s sake don’t lose your head over it, for what would you expect? — look at the record!

That is how every public presentation of these facts ought to run if Americans are ever going to grow up into an adult attitude towards them. Also, in order to keep down the great American sin of self-righteousness, every public presentation ought to draw the deadly parallel with the record of the American State. The German State is persecuting a minority, just as the American State did after 1776; the Italian State breaks into Ethiopia, just as the American State broke into Mexico; the Japanese State kills off the Manchurian tribes in wholesale lots, just as the American State did the Indian tribes; the British State practices large-scale carpetbaggery, like the American State after 1864; the imperialist French State massacres native civilians on their own soil, as the American State did in pursuit of its imperialistic policies in the Pacific, and so on.

In this way, perhaps, our people might get into their heads some glimmering of the fact that the State’s criminality is nothing new and nothing to be wondered at. It began when the first predatory group of men clustered together and formed the State, and it will continue as long as the State exists in the world, because the State is fundamentally an anti-social institution, fundamentally criminal. The idea that the State originated to serve any kind of social purpose is completely unhistorical. It originated in conquest and confiscation — that is to say, in crime. It originated for the purpose of maintaining the division of society into an owning-and-exploiting class and a propertyless dependent class — that is, for a criminal purpose.

No State known to history originated in any other manner, or for any other purpose. Like all predatory or parasitic institutions, its first instinct is that of self-preservation. All its enterprises are directed first towards preserving its own life, and, second, towards increasing its own power and enlarging the scope of its own activity. For the sake of this it will, and regularly does, commit any crime which circumstances make expedient. In the last analysis, what is the German, Italian, French, or British State now actually doing? It is ruining its own people in order to preserve itself, to enhance its own power and prestige, and extend its own authority; and the American State is doing the same thing to the utmost of its opportunities.

What, then, is a little matter like a treaty to the French or British State? Merely a scrap of paper — Bethmann-Hollweg[i] described it exactly. Why be astonished when the German or Russian State murders its citizens? The American State would do the same thing under the same circumstances. In fact, eighty years ago it did murder a great many of them for no other crime in the world but that they did not wish to live under its rule any longer; and if that is a crime, then the colonists led by G. Washington were hardened criminals and the Fourth of July is nothing but a cutthroat’s holiday.

The weaker the State is, the less power it has to commit crime. Where in Europe today does the State have the best criminal record? Where it is weakest: in Switzerland, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, Sweden, Monaco, Andorra. Yet when the Dutch State, for instance, was strong, its criminality was appalling; in Java it massacred 9,000 persons in one morning which is considerably ahead of Hitler’s record or Stalin’s. It would not do the like today, for it could not; the Dutch people do not give it that much power, and would not stand for such conduct. When the Swedish State was a great empire, its record, say from 1660 to 1670, was fearful. What does all this mean but that if you do not want the State to act like a criminal, you must disarm it as you would a criminal; you must keep it weak. The State will always be criminal in proportion to its strength; a weak State will always be as criminal as it can be, or dare be, but if it is kept down to the proper limit of weakness — which, by the way, is a vast deal lower limit than people are led to believe — its criminality may be safely got on with.

So it strikes me that instead of sweating blood over the iniquity of foreign States, my fellow-citizens would do a great deal better by themselves to make sure that the American State is not strong enough to carry out the like iniquities here. The stronger the American State is allowed to grow, the higher its record of criminality will grow, according to its opportunities and temptations. If, then, instead of devoting energy, time, and money to warding off wholly imaginary and fanciful dangers from criminals thousands of miles away, our people turn their patriotic fervor loose on the only source from which danger can proceed, they will be doing their full duty by their country.

Two able and sensible American publicists — Isabel Paterson, of the New York Herald Tribune, and W.J. Cameron, of the Ford Motor Company — have lately called our public’s attention to the great truth that if you give the State power to do something for you, you give it an exact equivalent of power to do something to you. I wish every editor, publicist, teacher, preacher, and lecturer would keep hammering that truth into American heads until they get it nailed fast there, never to come loose. The State was organized in this country with power to do all kinds of things for the people, and the people in their short-sighted stupidity, have been adding to that power ever since. After 1789, John Adams said that, so far from being a democracy of a democratic republic, the political organization of the country was that of “a monarchical republic, or, if you will, a limited monarchy”; the powers of its President were far greater than those of “an avoyer, a consul, a podesta, a doge, a stadtholder; nay, than a king of Poland; nay, than a king of Sparta.” If all that was true in 1789 — and it was true — what is to be said of the American State at the present time, after a century and a half of steady centralization and continuous increments of power?

Power, for instance, to “help business” by auctioning off concessions, subsidies, tariffs, land grants, franchises; power to help business by ever encroaching regulations, supervisions, various forms of control. All this power was freely given; it carried with it the equivalent power to do things to business; and see what a banditti of sharking political careerists are doing to business now! Power to afford “relief” to proletarians; and see what the State has done to those proletarians now in the way of systematic debauchery of whatever self-respect and self-reliance they may have had! Power this way, power that way; and all ultimately used against the interests of the people who surrendered that power on the pretext that it was to be used for those interests.

Many now believe that with the rise of the “totalitarian” State the world has entered upon a new era of barbarism. It has not. The totalitarian State is only the State; the kind of thing it does is only what the State has always done with unfailing regularity, if it had the power to do it, wherever and whenever its own aggrandizement made that kind of thing expedient. Give any State like power hereafter, and put it in like circumstances, and it will do precisely the same kind of thing. The State will unfailingly aggrandize itself, if only it has the power, first at the expense of its own citizens, and then at the expense of anyone else in sight. It has always done so, and always will.

The idea that the State is a social institution, and that with a fine upright man like Mr. Chamberlain at the head of it, or a charming person like Mr. Roosevelt, there can be no question about its being honorably and nobly managed — all this is just so much sticky flypaper. Men in that position usually make a good deal of their honor, and some of them indeed may have some (though if they had any I cannot understand their letting themselves be put in that position) but the machine they are running will run on rails which are laid only one way, which is from crime to crime. In the old days, the partition of CzechosLovakia or the taking-over of Austria would have been arranged by rigmarole among a few highly polished gentlemen in stiff shirts ornamented with fine ribbons. Hitler simply arranged it the way old Frederick arranged his share in the first partition of Poland; he arranged the annexation of Austria the way Louis XIV arranged that of Alsace. There is more or less of a fashion, perhaps, in the way these things are done, but the point is that they always come out exactly the same in the end.

Furthermore, the idea that the procedure of the “democratic” State is any less criminal than that of the State under any other fancy name, is rubbish. The country is now being surfeited with journalistic garbage about our great sister democracy, England, its fine democratic government, its vast beneficent gift for ruling subject peoples, and so on; but does anyone ever look up the criminal record of the British State? The bombardment of Copenhagen; the Boer War; the Sepoy Rebellion; the starvation of Germans by the post-Armistice blockade; the massacre of natives in India, Afghanistan, Jamaica; the employment of Hessians to kill off American colonists. What is the difference, moral or actual, between Kitchener’s democratic concentration camps[ii] and the totalitarian concentration camps maintained by Herr Hitler? The totalitarian general Badoglio[iii] is a pretty hard-boiled brother, if you like, but how about the democratic general O’Dwyer[iv] and Governor Eyre[v]? Any of the three stands up pretty well beside our own democratic virtuoso, Hell Roaring Jake Smith,[vi] in his treatment of the Filipinos; and you can’t say fairer than that.

As for the British State’s talent for a kindly and generous colonial administration, I shall not rake up old scores by citing the bill of particulars set forth in the Declaration of Independence; I shall consider India only, not even going into matters like the Kaffir war or the Wairau incident in New Zealand. Our democratic British cousins in India in the Eighteenth Century must have learned their trade from Pizarro and Cortez. Edmund Burke called them “birds of prey and passage.” Even the directors of the East India Company admitted that “the vast fortunes acquired in the inland trade have been obtained by a scene of the most tyrannical and oppressive conduct that was ever known in any age or country.” Describing a journey, Warren Hastings wrote that “most of the petty towns and serais were deserted at our approach”; the people ran off into the woods at the mere sight of a white man. There was the iniquitous salt monopoly; there was extortion everywhere, practiced by enterprising rascals in league with a corrupt police; there was taxation which confiscated almost half the products of the soil.

If it be said that Britain was not a sister democracy in those days, and has since reformed, one might well ask how much of the reformation is due to circumstances, and how much to a change of heart. Besides, the Black-and-Tans[vii] were in our day; so was the post-Armistice blockade; General O’Dwyer’s massacre was not more than a dozen years ago;[viii] and there are plenty alive who remember Kitchener’s concentration camps.

No, “democratic” State practice is nothing more or less than State practice. It does not differ from Marxist State practice, Fascist State practice, or any other. Here is the Golden Rule of sound citizenship, the first and greatest lesson in the study of politics: you get the same order of criminality from any State to which you give power to exercise it; and whatever power you give the State to do things for you carries with it the equivalent power to do things to you. A citizenry which has learned that one short lesson has but little more left to learn.

Stripping the American State of the enormous power it has acquired is a full-time job for our citizens and a stirring one; and if they attend to it properly they will have no energy to spare for fighting communism, or for hating Hitler, or for worrying about South America or Spain, or for anything whatever, except what goes on right here in the United States.

Editor’s Notes

[i] Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg (November 29, 1856 – January 1, 1921) was a German politician and statesman who served as Chancellor of the German Empire from 1909 to 1917. He was particularly upset by Britain’s declaration of war following German violation of Belgium’s neutrality in the course of her invasion of France, reportedly asking the departing British Ambassador Goschen how Britain could go to war over a “mere scrap of paper” (the Belgian Neutrality Treaty of 1839).

[ii] Horatio Herbert Kitchener (24 June 1850 – 5 June 1916) was an Irish-born British Field Marshal, diplomat and statesman. During the Second Boer War (1899–1902), Kitchener’s policy was to destory Boer farms and move civilians into concentration camps whose conditions led to wide opprobrium in Britain and Europe.

[iii] General Pietro Badoglio succeeded Benito Mussolini as Prime Minister of Italy (Provisional Military Government), from July 25, 1943 to June 18, 1944.

[iv] Sir Michael Francis O’Dwyer (April 1864 – March 13, 1940), was Lieutenant Governor of the Punjab from 1912 to 1919, where he oversaw the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre on April 13, 1919. According to official figures, 379 unarmed civilians were killed by Gurkha troops. Unofficial estimates place the figure much higher, at perhaps 2,000, with many more wounded. In the wake of the massacre O’Dwyer was relieved of his office.

[v] Edward John Eyre (5 August 1815 – 30 November 1901) was an English land explorer of the Australian continent and a controversial Governor of Jamaica, where he ruthlessly suppressed the Morant Bay Rebellion, and had many black peasants killed. He also authorized the judicial murder of George William Gordon, a mixed-race member of the colonial assembly who was suspected of involvement in the insurrection. These events created great controversy in Britain, leading to calls for Eyre to be arrested and tried for Gordon’s murder. John Stuart Mill organized the Jamaica Committee — comprised of such classical liberals as John Bright and Herbert Spencer — calling for his prosecution. Eyre was twice charged with murder, but the cases never proceeded.

[vi] General Jacob Hurd Smith (1840–1918) was a veteran of the Wounded Knee massacre and well known among Indian campaigners. As brigadier general in charge of the Samar campaign in the Philippine-American War (1899–1913), Smith became infamous for his orders to “kill everyone over the age of ten” and make the island “a howling wilderness.” He was dubbed “Hell Roaring Jake” Smith, “The Monster”, and “Howling Jake” by the newspapers.

[vii] The term “Black and Tans” refers to the Royal Irish Constabulary Reserve Force, which was one of two paramilitary forces employed by the Royal Irish Constabulary from 1920 to 1921, to suppress revolution in Ireland by targeting the IRA and Sinn Féin.

[viii] On March 13, 1940 — one year after Nock published this essay — Punjabi revolutionary Udham Singh shot O’Dwyer dead in Caxton Hall in London as an act of revenge for the massacre.

[Both “The Albany Plan Re-Visited” and TAPR 2nd Edition, solve this problem in the section on Federal Authority and Citizenship. Of the three ways to curtail this form of federal criminality, only Secession may be peaceful. The other two require an armed revolution or insurrection as one, and the other is conquest by an outside force. Both are violent, bloody, and expensive. Secession.]

The Economist explains
What happens when a country goes bust
Nov 24th 2014, 23:50 by S.N.

Timekeeper

FROM the days when monarchs over-borrowed for their mercantile adventures, to Argentina’s recent failure to pay its creditors, countries have long run into trouble paying back what they have borrowed. Spain’s 16th-century king, Philip II, reigned over four of his country’s defaults. Greece and Argentina have reneged on their commitments to bondholders seven and eight times respectively over the past 200 years. And most countries have defaulted at least once in their history. But what precisely happens when countries stop paying what they owe?

When a country fails to pay its creditors on time, it is said to go into “default”, the national equivalent of going bankrupt. But sovereign defaults are quite different from business bankruptcies as it is far harder for creditors to repossess the assets of a sovereign entity than to repossess the assets of a company (an unarmed Argentinian naval vessel detained in Ghana for ten weeks in 2012 was an exception). In the first instance, to curry favour in international markets, defaulting countries tend to restructure their debt rather than simply refusing to pay anything at all. But these so-called “haircuts”, where the original value of a bond is reduced, can be much more painful for the holders of government bonds than a simple clip of the scissors. After its $81 billion default in 2001, Argentina offered to pay its creditors a third of what it owed—93% of the debt was eventually swapped for performing securities in 2005 and 2010. But the remainder, which is held by vulture funds and other investors, is still in dispute. These “holdouts” are waiting for $1.3 billion plus interest. And when Greece defaulted in 2012, bondholders were forced to take hits as high as 50%. In less severe cases, countries may choose to restructure their debt by requesting more time to pay. This has the effect of reducing the present value of the bond—so it isn’t entirely pain-free for investors. Some suggest that this is the right course of action for Ukraine as it struggles to balance its immediate domestic priorities against its obligations to bondholders.

Defaults can also be very painful for the offending country, particularly if they are unexpected and disorderly. Domestic savers and investors, anticipating a fall in the value of the local currency, will scramble to withdraw their money from bank accounts and move it out of the country. To avoid bank-runs and precipitous currency depreciation, the government may shut down banks and impose capital controls. As punishment for default, capital markets will either impose punitive borrowing rates or refuse to lend at all. And credit-rating agencies will no doubt warn against investing in the country. But as history shows, in most countries yield-hungry lenders will eventually start lending again so long as they are adequately rewarded for the risk they are taking on. Moreover, credit-default swaps—financial instruments which act as a form of insurance against sovereign and corporate defaults—allow bondholders to hedge their risk. But not all defaults are the same: Argentina defaulted again this year by refusing to pay $1.3 billion plus interest to the “holdouts” from 2001.

Critically, there is no international law or court for settling sovereign defaults, which helps explain why they are so varied in length and severity. More international regulation has been proposed—including powers to prevent minority holders from hijacking the process—but such conditions ultimately remain up to the issuing country. The first bond issuances since the new proposals (by Kazakhstan and Vietnam) include these clauses. Other countries might follow suit, but this doesn’t resolve the $900 billion of bonds outstanding that were issued under the old rules. Like any messy divorce, drawn out negotiations around defaults can be costly for all parties involved. Working towards better pre-nuptial terms might not be such a bad idea.

[Not mentioned, is that the domestic GDP has historically shrunk between 7 and 19%, with corresponding increase in box 6 of the employment stats, meaning REAL unemployment, not the misleading box 3 stats released by the gov’t.]

“If they (the North) prevail, the whole character of the Government will be changed, and instead of a federal republic, the common agent of sovereign and independent States, we shall have a central despotism, with the notion of States forever abolished, deriving its power from the will, and shaping its policy according to the wishes, of a numerical majority of the people; we shall have, in other words, a supreme, irresponsible democracy. The Government does not now recognize itself as an ordinance of God, and when all the checks and balances of the constitution are gone, we may easily figure to ourselves the career and the destiny of this godless monster of democratic absolutism. The progress of regulated liberty on this continent will be arrested, anarchy will soon succeed, and the end will be a military despotism, which preserves order by the sacrifice of the last vestige of liberty. They are now fighting the battle of despotism. They have put their Constitution under their feet; they have annulled its most sacred provisions; they future fortunes of our children, and of this continent, would then be determined by a tyranny which has no parallel in history.” ~Dr. James Henly Thornwell of South Carolina, In Our Danger and our Duty, 1862

[Got this email with all sorts of statistics regarding illegals in LA County, claiming LA Times as the source. Actually knowing something re this area, and even though I dislike snopes, I checked with their postings, as if nothing else, they would have references. So, here’s the deal regarding those emailed stats.

Now, I don’t really care that the original email is off, what is disgusting is that the below is the truth. Illegals Aliens are a cancer on American Culture. The below stats prove it. Keep in mind, this is just ONE of dozens of counties in CA, NYS, MA, IL, PA, OR, WA, MO, IA, FL, and several other states.

An estimate of the actual cost to the US Taxpayer in dollars/annum, is over 600B. That is $600,000,000.00 or about the current defense department expenditure on Obama. Another way to look at it, is that 600 B would more than cover the cost of the interest on the national debt.

Think about it.]

Where Your Taxes Go

Claim: Listing provides statistics about the number and costs of illegal aliens in Los Angeles County.

MIXTURE

Examples: [Collected via e-mail, 2006]

WHERE YOUR TAXES GO – ILLEGAL ALIENS

Attributed to the LA Times, June 2002:

1. 40% of all workers in L.A. County (L.A. County has 10 million people) are working for cash and not paying taxes. This was because they are predominantly illegal immigrants, working without a green card.

2. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.

3. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.

4. Over 2/3’s of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal whose births were paid for by taxpayers.

Over 70% of the United States annual population growth (and over 90% of California, Florida, and New York) results from immigration.

The cost of illegal immigration to the American taxpayer in 1997 was a NET (after subtracting taxes immigrants pay) $70 BILLION a year, [Professor Donald Huddle, Rice University].

The lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) for the average adult Mexican immigrant is a NEGATIVE.

29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens.

Origins: The various figures quoted above were not taken from a 2002 Los Angeles Times article. They appear to have been gleaned from a variety of sources and vary in accuracy as noted below:

Over 2/3’s of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal whose births were paid for by taxpayers.
The California Vital Records Department of the Department of Health Services classified as “Hispanic” the race/ethnicity of 62.7% of all births occurring in Los Angeles county in 2001. The statistic quoted above therefore erroneously characterizes all parents of Hispanic heritage in Los Angeles County in 2001 as being “illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal.”

The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.
In April 2005, Heather Mac Donald, a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, testified before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims. On the issue of gang membership among illegal immigrants, she said:
No one knows for certain the percentage of illegals in gangs, thanks in large part to sanctuary laws themselves. But various estimates exist:

A confidential California Department of Justice study reported in 1995 that 60 percent of the 20,000-strong 18th Street Gang in southern California is illegal; police officers say the proportion is actually much greater. The bloody gang collaborates with the Mexican Mafia, the dominant force in California prisons, on complex drug-distribution schemes, extortion, and drive-by assassinations. It commits an assault or robbery every day in L.A. County. The gang has grown dramatically over the last two decades by recruiting recently arrived youngsters, most of them illegal, from Central America and Mexico.
Note, however, that this statement references a California Department of Justice study (not an FBI report), and that it describes only a single gang in Los Angeles County (the 18th Street Gang), the gang that likely has the highest membership rate of illegal aliens.

95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
This figure also appears (unsourced) in Heather Mac Donald’s testimony before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims:
In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide in the first half of 2004 (which totaled 1,200 to 1,500) targeted illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) were for illegal aliens.
Even if the statistic is accurate, however, it is subject to a variety of interpretations. For example, illegal aliens might be disproportionately represented by outstanding homicide warrants in Los Angeles because they are more likely to flee the jurisdiction before their cases are adjudicated than legal residents are (not necessarily because they commit a far greater share of the homicides in Los Angeles). This interpretation is supported by a University of California Davis summary of immigration issues that notes:
The Los Angeles Police Department has a 12-year old Foreign Prosecution Unit that pursues suspects who fled the US after committing crimes in Los Angeles and gives testimony when they are prosecuted aboard. The United States does not have extradition treaties with most Latin American countries but many countries, for example, Mexico, Nicaragua or El Salvador try suspects for murder and other violent crimes committed in the US.

The Foreign Prosecution Unit was founded in 1985, after a study found that nearly half of the LAPD’s outstanding arrest warrants involved Mexican nationals who were presumed to have fled the country. The FPU works with Interpol to find suspects who flee abroad and then prepares the evidence so that the person can be arrested and prosecuted. The FPU clears about one-third of its cases, compared to two-thirds of all homicide cases in Los Angeles.

The Mexican consulate in Los Angeles has a representative of the Mexican attorney general’s office to work with the FPU in prosecuting suspects in Mexico for crimes committed in Los Angeles.
75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.
The Los Angeles Police Department’s “Most Wanted” list is viewable on-line, but since each entry generally includes only the ethnicity of a suspect (not his or her immigration status or nationality), and many of the entries refer to persons of unknown identity, it’s difficult to verify the claim that 75% of the people listed therein are illegal aliens.

Nearly 25% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.
Again, this figure appears to correspond with Heather Mac Donald’s testimony before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims:
The L.A. County Sheriff reported in 2000 that 23% of inmates in county jails were deportable, according to the New York Times.
Note, however, that the 23% figure cited includes all deportable aliens, not just Mexican nationals.

21 radio stations in L.A. are Spanish speaking.
The number of Spanish-language radio stations in Los Angeles varies a bit from source to source (and according to how one defines “Los Angeles”), but according to Los Angeles Almanac, if both AM and FM stations are counted, and all programming formats (e.g., music, news, talk, religion, sports) are included, then it’s fair to say that there are about 20 “Spanish speaking” radio stations in Los Angeles.

Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops but 29% are on welfare
Although illegal aliens are not generally eligible to collect public welfare benefits, an illegal alien may receive benefits under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and Food Stamps programs on behalf of his or her U.S. citizen child. (Any child born in the United States is considered a U.S. citizen, regardless of the parents’ immigration status.) A 1997 General Accounting Office (GAO) report determined that in 1995 households headed by illegal aliens received a total of $700 million in AFDC benefits and $430 million in Food Stamps.

Over 70% of the United States annual population growth (and over 90% of California, Florida, and New York) results from immigration.
As the Sacramento Bee recently reported, the “over 90%” figure for population growth in California is essentially accurate if the term “immigration” is defined to encompass both foreign immigrants and births to immigrant mothers:
When Department of Finance numbers are merged with Census Bureau numbers and birth and death data collected by the state Department of Health Services are added to the mix, showing that half of all births are to immigrant mothers, the inescapable conclusion is that foreign immigration and births to immigrant mothers together comprise all of the state’s net population growth. Or, to put it another way, without foreign immigration, California would have virtually zero population growth.
The cost of illegal immigration to the American taxpayer in 1997 was a NET (after subtracting taxes immigrants pay) $70 BILLION a year, [Professor Donald Huddle, Rice University].
It is true that Rice University economist Donald Huddle has conducted studies and concluded that immigrants (both legal and illegal) in the U.S. receive billions of dollars more in social services from local, state and federal governments than they contribute in revenue. It’s also true that others have criticized his studies as flawed and arrived at exactly the opposite conclusion (i.e., that immigrants actually produce a net revenue surplus). For example, a University of California Davis Migration News article on “Illegal Immigration: Numbers, Benefits, and Costs in California” notes:
There is a great deal of disagreement over the costs and benefits of immigrants to the US and California. Studies in the early 1980s in Texas and New York concluded that the taxes paid by immigrants exceeded the cost of providing public services to them, but that the federal government got the surplus of taxes over expenditures, and local governments had deficits. Los Angeles did a study in 1992 that reinforced this conclusion.

Donald Huddle of Rice University set the benchmark for today’s debate with a study that concluded that the legal and illegal immigrants who arrived since 1970 cost the US $42.5 billion in 1992, and $18.1 billion in California. According to Huddle, 7.2 million immigrants arrived legally and illegally in California since 1970, and the state incurred costs of $23 billion to provide them with services — half of the costs were for education and health care, and one-sixth were due to the costs of providing services to US residents displaced by these immigrants.

As with all such studies, Huddle made assumptions about how many illegal aliens there are, their usage of welfare and other public services, the taxes they paid, and their indirect economic impacts. Jeff Passel of the Urban Institute reviewed and revised Huddle’s US estimates, and his calculations turned the $42 billion net cost into a $29 billion net benefit.

Most of the $70 billion difference between these studies arises from their estimates of the taxes paid by immigrants — Huddle assumes that post-1970 immigrants paid $20 billion in taxes to all levels of government, and Passel assumes they paid $70 billion. And the major reason for the difference in tax estimates is that Huddle did not include the 15 percent of each worker’s earnings that are paid in Social Security taxes, while Passel did — this accounts for over one-third of the $70 billion difference.

Huddle excluded Social Security taxes because, in his view, contributions today need to be offset by the promise of benefit payments to immigrants when they retire. Passel included them because the federal government treats Social Security on a pay-as-you-go basis.
An article published by the Urban Institute drew similar conclusions:
According to the most controversial study of those discussed here, the benefits and costs of immigration to the United States in 1992 add up to a total net cost to all levels of government of $42.5 billion. This study, by Donald Huddle, was sponsored by the Carrying Capacity Network, a nonprofit group that advocates major reductions in immigration to the United States. “The Costs of Immigration” (Huddle 1993) uses estimation procedures that include a variety of errors. When these errors are corrected, the post-1970 immigrants in Huddle’s study actually show a surplus of revenues over social service costs of at least $25 billion.
Last updated: 19 September 2014

[It’s not only The Catholic Church, it is also B’Nai B’Rith, and the Protestant Christian churches and charities. Before Obamacare, more than 40% of all hospital beds in the USA, were ‘charitable’ hospital beds, meaning, as I posted in the post on the healthcare hoax, provided by non-government charities, mostly religious. Go review the other post. Until Obamacare, every human being within the geographical confines of the United States of America, had free access to healthcare simply by showing up at one of these hospitals. Charitable institutions provide the bulk of services for those truly in need. Government through extortion covers the rest. Keep in mind that many of the newly elected US Senators and Representatives got into office pledging to repeal Obamacare. Watch what goes on, and consider the following, and keep in mind that the founders were opposed to these socialist tendencies. All that it takes to understand what limitations were placed on the federal government, is to read two books: The Federalist Papers, and The Anti-Federalist Papers, publishing/ purchasing info is on the book list posted herein.]

The Catholic Church

Good Morning Folks, Here is an interesting piece that I received from a friend. Please read and figure out the consequences.

I AM NOT A CATHOLIC, BUT THIS NEEDS TO BE READ BY ALL AMERICANS ASAP!

This for all denominations, not just Catholics, Protestants & Jewish people

Catholic Church

Charity Hospital run by the Sisters of Charity in New Orleans, along with the Upjohn Company, developed the plasma system in the 1930’s that savd so many lives in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam and in the Middle East now.

During the Civil War most of the nurses were nuns.

Even if you are not Catholic, this is eye opening:

When the Catholic Church was founded, there were no hospitals.

Today, one out of five people in this country receive their medical care at a Catholic hospital

When the Catholic Church was founded, there were no schools.

Today, the Catholic Church teaches 3 million students a day, in its more than 250 Catholic colleges and universities, in its more than 1200 Catholic high schools and its more than 5000 Catholic grade schools.

Every day, the Catholic Church feeds, clothes, shelters and educates more people than any other organization in the world.

The new Obama Health Mandate could end all this, and the tax payers would have to make up the loss.

Also, all Catholic adoption services will come to an end…a human disaster.

There are more than 77 million Catholics in this country.

It takes an estimated 50 million Catholic votes to elect a president.

I am asking all of you to go to the polls in 2014, and be united in replacing all Senators and Reps with someone who will respect the Catholic Church, all Christians, and all religions with perhaps, the exception of Islam

Mr. President, you said, “The USA is not a Christian Nation”.

You are wrong!!!

We are a Christian nation founded on Judeo-Christian values, allowing all religions in America to worship and practice freely….

Something that Islam will never do.

Oh, by the way, on MUSLIM HERITAGE in America….

Have you ever been to a Muslim hospital, heard a Muslim orchestra, seen a Muslim band march in a parade, know of a Muslim charity, ever seen Muslims shaking hands with a Muslim Girl Scout, or ever seen a Muslim Candy Striper volunteering in a hospital?

Have you ever seen a Muslim do much of anything that contributes positively to the American way of life?

PLEASE DON’T KEEP THIS—PLEASE SEND IT OUT TO YOUR LIST.

Let’s circulate this to as many as possible. And remember this at the elections coming up in 2014 and 2016.

[ Additional commentary at the end: Keep in mind while reading this, that the timeline for Counselor Flatow’s actions actually start in the 1970’s when this “Foundation” was taken over by the Iranian Theocracy. Thus, the criminal activity detailed herein, took place during the following administrations: Carter, Reagan, HW Bush, Clinton, H Bush, and Obama.]

Stephen Flatow: The Amazing Story of What One Person Can Accomplish
By Rabbi Brenner Glickman, Rosh Hashanah 5775/2014

Tonight, I will tell you a story. It is the true story of a seemingly inconsequential man who, driven by passion and determination, has accomplished the extraordinary. It is a David and Goliath story of our times, and it continues to unfold. When you hear this story, I think you will agree that someone needs to write a book about this man. I can’t believe that no one has yet.

Our hero’s name is Stephen Flatow. He is a real-estate attorney in northern New Jersey. He does title work, mostly, out of a small, cluttered office. He is well-regarded in his field, but not especially well known. He makes a living. He is famous, however, in other circles, as an activist. His courage and determination are unmatched. This lone man has stood up to the greatest powers and has not blinked. He has challenged the State Department, the Justice Department, the courts, and the largest banks in the world. He has failed and prevailed, stumbled and triumphed, over and over again. He does not quit. He is driven by the love of his daughter, a daughter who was killed by a suicide bomber twenty years ago. This is his story.

Alisa Flatow was a student at Brandeis University. She chose to spend a semester studying abroad in Jerusalem. After a few months in Israel, she and her roommates decided to spend a weekend at a beach resort in Gaza. This was 1995, soon after the Oslo accords, and Gaza was still under Israeli control. It seems unfathomable now, but people used to vacation in Gaza at the beach resorts. On the way to the beach, their bus was struck by a van filled with explosives. The terrorist group Palestinian Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the killing. Seven Israeli soldiers riding on the bus were killed. Alisa was severely wounded, but she did not die right away. The terrorist van was filled with shrapnel that exploded through the windows of the bus and struck her head. She was unconscious, but her body was unharmed.

The doctors called her father in America, and told him to come right away. When he landed in Ben Gurion airport, government agents met him on the runway, and escorted him straight from the plane to the hospital. By the time he arrived, Alisa was brain-dead. The doctors offered their condolences, and asked the father if he would be willing to donate her organs.

This was not a simple question. The Flatow family was Orthodox and observant. It was not customary for Orthodox Jews to donate organs, and they were not sure it was allowed by Jewish law. So the parents called their rabbi and asked what to do. He told them to donate the organs, and so they did.

That single act became a sensation in Israel. To understand its significance, I need to give a little background information. There is much in Jewish law and custom that would discourage organ donation. It has been our longstanding tradition to treat a dead body as sacred. Our custom is to watch over it, cleanse it, and prepare it carefully for burial. The body is buried whole and unaltered. That is why rabbinic authorities have generally discouraged autopsies.

But organ donation is special. It presents the opportunity to save a life. In Jewish law, the saving of a human life takes special precedence. You can violate just about all the other commandments if you can save a life. Therefore, Jewish law does not just allow organ donation, it requires it. Reform and Conservative rabbis immediately encouraged organ donation, and by the 1970s, Orthodox rabbis did as well.

The problem was that most Jews in Israel were not aware of this. The rates of organ donation were extraordinarily low. Israel was part of a European consortium of organ sharing nations, but was suspended because too few Israelis were registered donors. It was a stunning irony for a nation famous as an innovator of advanced medical technologies. The problem was that Israelis knew about the tradition of burying a body whole; they were not so aware that their rabbis allowed organ donation.

Throughout the 1970s and 80s, various medical groups and the government in Israel tried to educate the public, but nothing worked. Organ donation rates were terribly low. People were desperate for organs, but few were donating. It just wasn’t what people did.

And then the Flatows offered their daughter’s organs to the people of Israel. The news made headlines in every newspaper throughout the nation. Her heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, pancreas, and corneas were able to save six lives in Israel. Notably, at least one of the recipients was Arab Palestinian. The people of Israel were amazed, and grateful. They had felt so alone in suffering against terrorism, and here this family from America made such a gesture. They felt that the world Jewish community was with them. We were one.

Days later, Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin came to Washington DC and spoke before a gathering of 12,000 American Jews. What he told them would be printed in newspapers throughout America. He spoke about what Alisa’s gift meant to the Israeli people. “Today,” he said, “her heart beats in Jerusalem.” There is more. After Alisa’s death, the Flatows lives were shattered. Alisa’s mother withdrew into herself and her home. But the father, Stephen, decided to take action. He wanted justice. It was widely reported that the State of Iran was the sponsor and financial backer of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. It angered him that there were no consequences for Iran. They had funded his daughter’s murderers, and no one was doing anything about it. The bomber himself was killed. The terrorist ring was being pursued by Israel. Stephen Flatow decided to take it upon himself to go after Iran.

A lawyer by training, he sought justice through the courts. He had a brilliant idea. If he and other victims of terror could file suit against Iran, they could exact punishment on the regime. They would make it costly for states to sponsor terror, and then maybe Iran would think twice about doing it again.

But there was a problem. United States law did not allow private citizens to sue foreign governments. It was expressly forbidden. So Stephen Flatow went to Washington to change the law. His senator, the Jewish Frank Lautenberg, happened to be in Israel at the time of Alyssa’s death. He took a special interest in her family and drafted legislation. Flatow testified before congress, and even gained the backing of President Clinton. Congress passed the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1996 to make an exception to the longstanding rule. In cases of state-sponsored terror, individual US citizens could sue foreign nations for damages in US courts. It was the first victory.

It did not last. The courts threw it out. So back to Washington he went for a new law, one written specifically to override the objections of the court. Once again he sued the state of Iran in a US court. But his time, one of his allies became an adversary. The Clinton administration began to see Flatow as interfering in national diplomacy. The White House was against Iran, but they did not want Flatow dictating the terms. So the U.S. Department of Justice intervened in the case, and actually filed a brief in support of Iran and against the victims of terror. Once more, Flatow returned to Congress and this time he got a third law that gave citizens even more strength to sue foreign governments, this time with teeth.

Finally, in 1997, he received his judgment. A court ruled in favor of the Flatows and against Iran. The family was awarded $26 million in compensatory damages, and over $200 million in punitive damages.

But the issue was hardly over. How do you collect money from a rogue state? They weren’t paying. Stephen Flatow devised a plan. Since the United States had ended diplomatic ties with Iran following the rise of the Ayatollah, the Iranian embassy in Washington and the residence of the Iranian ambassador have been in control of the United States Government. The State Department holds them in trust with the goal of returning them to Iran someday when relations resume. Stephen Flatow now had a ruling that said the Iranian government owed him $247 million. He sought possession of the embassy and the residence, property owned by Iran. The State Department refused. They feared that if the United States confiscated sovereign property here, our embassies and properties abroad would become threatened. So instead, they paid Flatow $20 million from US funds with the understanding that the United States would collect that money from Iran someday.

Stephen Flatow was furious. His goal was not to get money. His goal was to make Iran pay so they would stop sponsoring terror. He had won in court and he had received money, but Iran had still not paid one cent.

And this leads to the third chapter of this amazing saga. Stephen Flatow did not give up. He began to look for other assets in the United States that were owned by the government of Iran. Officially, there were none. United States sanctions prohibited Iran from doing any business in the United States, or for anyone to do business with Iran in the United States. But Flatow had suspicions that a charitable foundation in New York was actually a front, laundering money for the Iranian regime.

Why would the Iranians funnel their money through New York? Because the financial exchanges are there, and you can’t get anything done internationally without going through New York’s markets. Iran’s economy, its nuclear weapons development, its sponsorship of Hezbollah and other jihadists groups – all required moving money across currencies. They needed a secret foothold in New York. The Alavi Foundation was established decades ago by the Shah to promote Iranian culture abroad. It owned a gleaming skyscraper on 5th Avenue in Manhattan, between Rockefeller Center and the Museum of Modern Art. Ivan Boesky used to office there. Stephen Flatow did a lot of digging, and then filed papers in court demonstrating that the foundation and the building were secretly operated by the Iranian government. And if they belonged to the state of Iran, they were subject to his financial ruling.

Stephen Flatow’s case was a civil matter, but it came to the attention of a young analyst sitting in a cubicle at the Manhattan District Attorney’s office. If what Flatow was saying was true, there was some serious criminal wrongdoing going on. That young analyst’s name was Eitan Arusy. Before he starting working for the District Attorney, he served in the Israel Defense Force as a spokesman. He was one of the first responders to the scene of the carnage on the day that Alisa Flatow’s bus was bombed. He had a special interest in the case. The district attorney’s office did their own digging, and came to the same conclusion as Flatow – the Alavi Foundation was actually a front for Bank Melli, the State of Iran’s government-owned national bank. But how did the Iranians do it? How did they get their money in and out of the United States? The district attorney’s office soon discovered that two European Banks, Credit Suisse and Lloyds of London, were moving money and falsifying documents for the Iranians. When the FBI raided the records of the charity, they found vast deposits from Credit Suisse and Lloyds. The banks cooperated with investigators. They provided emails and memos detailing how they took Iranian money and sent it to the United States in their own names. Without admitting guilt, Lloyds agreed to pay a fine of $350 million, and Credit Suisse $536 million.

They were not alone. It was soon discovered that most of the major European banks were laundering money for the Iranians into the United States, in direct violation of US law. Barclays Bank settled in 2010, paying the United States $298 million. In 2012, ING, Standard Chartered, and HSBC also settled. HSBC agreed to pay $1.9 billion.

Then came the big one. While all these banks were making deals with the US government, two employees of BNP Paribas became whistleblowers. They shared with investigators that their bank had laundered tens of billions of dollars of Iranian money. They had also laundered money for Sudan while its regime was committing genocide.

BNP is the largest bank in France. This summer you may have seen the news. BNP became the first bank to admit guilt in laundering money for the Iranian government. They agreed to pay $8.9 billion in fines to the United States. It was far and away the largest penalty ever paid by a bank in history. The New York Times headline said it best: “A Grieving Father Pulls a Thread that Unravels BNP’s Illegal Deals.” A dad lost his girl. The hole in his life will never be filled. He thinks about her every day. He never gives up. He is a small-time attorney doing title work in New Jersey. But his tenacity and his grit and his smarts were beyond anyone’s estimation. This one man in New Jersey uncovered an international conspiracy of bank fraud.

The story is not over. Stephen Flatow is not done. The man who instantly changed the culture of organ donation is Israel is trying to do the same here in America. He takes every opportunity to speak to Orthodox congregations to encourage organ donation. Though the rate of donation consent in America is strong at 60%, the rate among Flatow’s fellow Orthodox Jews is only 5%. He is on a mission to change that.

He and his wife have also established a foundation in Alisa’s name. They sponsor young Jewish women from around the world to take a semester of study in Jerusalem. The money they have received in their fight against Iran is now sponsoring women’s Torah study and the vitality of the State of Israel.

And, in the months ahead, he may finally achieve his goal of making Iran actually pay. A federal judge has the ruled that the assets of the Alavi Foundation be liquidated. The gleaming office tower in New York and other properties around America will be sold and the proceeds will go to the victims of Iranian-sponsored terrorism. That will be Iranian money. Finally, Iran will pay a price.

All of this because of one man in Northern New Jersey. One man who never quit.

Earlier this summer, I did my own digging and I found Stephen Flatow’s contact information. I sent him an email.

Dear Mr. Flatow,

My name is Brenner Glickman and I am a rabbi with a congregation in Sarasota, Florida. I admire you and am writing a sermon about you and your family for this High Holidays. Thank you for all that you have done and continue to do for Israel and America.
You are an inspiration.

He replied the same day:
Dear Rabbi Glickman,

Thanks very much for your note. But it’s really Alisa who has been the source of strength and encouragement these past 19 years. As I like to remind people , I’m still her father and we do anything for our children.
Stephen Flatow

[Aside from the obvious corruption evident in the entire narrative, here are some things that are passed over; both FINRA and the OCC were established decades ago to prevent all of this. High members of the administrations listed in my opening comment MUST have known, including those at the Cabinet Level, Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Department of Labor, Securities and Exchange Commission, to list just a few. Whether or not these cabinet level officiasl informed their respective president or respective chief of staff, is a matter for the pertinent Congressional Oversight Committee.

Y’all keep wondering and sending me emails about secession, but it is the only way to get rid of this institutional corruption which never reaches the media, much less your notice. I redirect your attention to, once again, the posts below on wealth, economics, education, and the argument for secession.

Secession is the only way to remove all of the bureaucrats who have allowed this form of corruption to exist for as long as it has, and to prevent its continuance.]

The below listed speech is the most important speech, in support of the Republic, that I have listened to, since I listened to many important speeches by President
Ronald Reagan over a 14 year period. I believe I can speak with a degree of authority and confidence, because of my association with President Ronald Reagan and the Reagan administration over that 14 year period. The below listed keynote speech was given by Dinesh D’Souza, author and producer of the most successful documentary film in history, “America”; the address was given on September 6, 2014 at the Town and Country Hotel in San Diego, California during a Gala Event to introduce the Combat Veterans For Congress to the national press corps.

I was very fortunate to work with and for President Reagan, on and off, for a 14 years period. I began my association with former California Governor Ronald Reagan during his campaign for the Republican nomination for President, when he was running against President Gerald Ford. That campaign took us to the Republican Convention in Kansas City, where Gov Reagan lost what was until then, a very close nomination race, but because of the power of incumbent who was able to offer delegates from key states with certain benefits, Gov Reagan lost. I continued to work with President Reagan during his two terms and for 2 years after he left office; when his staff in Century City would ask me if I would volunteer to do advances for the former President, when he was scheduled to make speeches to various audiences..

I encourage you to pass this very important video on to everyone in your address book who cares about the survival of the Republic envisioned and created by our Founding Fathers. That Republic that we knew and raised in our youth is under relentless attack by the occupant of the Oval Office, and is intent on changing it to a Socialist State. The endorsed Combat Veterans For Congress, listed in the attachment who are running in 2014, will fight to protect our Judeo-Christian Heritage, the “Freedoms” outlined in The Bill of Rights, and will fight to protect and defend the US Constitution——-the US Constitution they raised their right hand and swore to protect and defend, and did so on foreign fields of combat, while repeatedly putting their lives on the line.

THE
MEMORANDUM
Researched and Written by Tommy K. Cryer, J.D.
Filed in support of his Motion to Dismiss
Tax Evasion Charges Filed Against Him
in
United States v. Tommy K. Cryer
No. 06-50164-01
Western District of Louisiana
Shreveport Division
THE
MEMORANDUM
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
BIO 3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 6
ARGUMENT AND LAW 7
Tax Laws Subject to Strict Construction 8
THE INCOME TAX LAW DOES NOT ‘PLAINLY AND CLEARLY LAY’ ANY TAX UPON DEFENDANT’S REVENUE
The Internal Revenue Code does not “Plainly and Clearly Lay” any liability for an income tax on defendant. 11
The Internal Revenue Code does not “Plainly and Clearly Lay” a tax on any of defendant’s revenues. 21
DEFENDANT’S REVENUES ARE NOT SUBJECT TO FEDERAL TAXATION BY EXCISE
The Federal Taxing Power 41
The income tax is an excise 61
Defendant’s activities and revenues are exempt from federal excise taxation as being outside the taxing authority of the federal government 68
Defendant and his revenues are exempt from federal excise taxation because they are within the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the State 70
Defendant’s revenues are exempt from federal excise taxation because the activity is the exercise of a fundamental, constitutionally protected right, and, therefore, outside the taxing authority of the federal government 74
Defendant’s revenues do not constitute “income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment” and the Constitution 88
2

BIOGRAPHIC SUMMARY
Tommy K. Cryer
Attorney at Law
4348 Youree Dr.
Shreveport, LA 71105
CryerLaw@aol.com
Ph. (318) 865-3392
Personal:
Born Lake Charles, LA, September 11, 1949
Married (1) Carolyn Fisher, dec’d.
(2) Bettye “Dee Dee” Woodard
Education:
Sam Houston High School, Moss Bluff, LA, 1967, third in class, American Heritage Award, Continental Oil Scholarship, T. H. Harris Scholarship, JFK Memorial Scholarship, Civitan Award; Activities: Football letterman, FBLA, Beta Club, Drama Club founder and Literary Rally.
McNeese State University, Lake Charles, LA, B.A. 1970 (Psychology, Sociology, Military Science & Pre-Law), 3.4 GPA (Note: Multi-major degree in three years)
LSU Law School, Baton Rouge, LA, J.D. 1973, Honor Graduate, Order of the Coif
Inducted LSU Law School Hall of Fame, 1987.
Military:
Honorably Discharged, Captain, U. S. Army, Adjutant General Corps.
Professional:
Louisiana Constitutional Convention, 1973, Special Advisor and Draftsman (Declaration (Bill) of Rights, Municipalities)
Hargrove, Guyton, Ramey & Barlow, Shreveport, LA, 1973-1975; Oil & Gas, Oil & Gas Transmission (including extensive work in expropriation), Corporate, Estate, Estate Planning, Trusts, Personal Injury and others.
Private Practice, Shreveport, LA, 1975 – Practice has included virtually every aspect of the law, both criminal and civil, with clientele consisting of numerous individuals, families and 3
businesses (including many third generation clients) whose varied needs have provided experience and expertise across an extremely broad spectrum.
Litigation in all courts, including pro hoc vice appointments to try cases in New York, California and Texas.
Extensive trial experience, bench and jury, and appellate experience including Louisiana Supreme Court, in which have been privileged to successfully advocate numerous cases forging new law (two of which were significant enough that the legislature overturned them within one year).
Civic Activities:
Shreveport Jaycees (exhausted rooster), Board of Directors, Legal Counsel, Chaired numerous projects
Caddo Heights United Methodist Church, Board of Trustees 1974-1980
Shreveport Optimist Club, Board of Directors
Past Master, W. H. Booth Lodge #380, F & AM
Past Master, First Masonic District Lodge
Louisiana Grand Lodge, Law & Jurisprudence Committee; Board of Charities and Benevolences; Education Committee; Certified Instructor; Lecturer at numerous Grand Master’s Seminars across the state
Scottish Rite Bodies, Shreveport Valley, 32°
El Karubah Shrine, Shreveport, LA
Past President, Shreveport High Twelve Club
Chairman, Shreveport Republican PAC, 1991-3, Delegate 1992 State Republican Convention; oversaw and consulted for eleven campaigns, left office 11 and 0. (no longer active in politics)
Personal Interests:
Study of History and Constitutional Law
Hunting and Fishing
Woodworking
Licensed Pilot, Multi-engine Land
4
CAVEAT:
THIS MEMORANDUM WAS PREPARED AND WRITTEN FOR ONE SPECIFIC CASE AND MAY NOT APPLY TO OTHERS.
IT IS NOT OFFERED AS LEGAL ADVICE NOR AS A LEGAL OPINION RELATIVE TO ANYONE OTHER THAN THE PARTY IN THIS CASE AND FOR THE ISSUES PRESENTED BY THIS PARTICULAR PROCEEDING.
THE READER SHOULD OBTAIN INDEPENDENT ADVICE FROM A LICENSED ATTORNEY BEFORE RELYING ON THE APPLICABILITY OF ANY AUTHORITIES CITED HEREIN INSOFAR AS THEY MAY OR MAY NOT APPLY TO THE READER.
THIS MATERIAL IS NOT COPYRIGHTED AND REPRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION IS NOT ONLY AUTHORIZED, BUT ENCOURAGED, PROVIDED THAT THE FOREGOING CAVEAT IS INCLUDED WITH ANY SUCH REPRODUCTION AND/OR DISTRIBUTION, WHETHER IN WHOLE OR IN PART
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CASE NO. 06-50164-01
V.
JUDGE: HICKS

TOMMY K. CRYER, Defendant MAGISTRATE: HORNSBY
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
OF
DEFENDANT’S FOURTH MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT
MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On October 25, 2006, the government filed herein an indictment charging defendant, TOMMY K. CRYER, hereinafter “Cryer”, with two counts of tax evasion, alleging that during the years 2000 and 2001 Cryer had received taxable income but had knowingly and willfully failed to timely file tax returns for said years and that, as an “affirmative act” of evasion Cryer had failed to file tax returns for the Tommy K. Cryer Trust, which, the indictment claims, had received taxable income, thereby (presumably) concealing income and misleading the Internal Revenue Service, hereinafter IRS, into believing that Cryer had no income for the years 2000 and 2001, all in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201.
Defendant now files this motion pursuant to Rule 12(b) to dismiss both counts of the indictment, with prejudice, on the basis that as a matter of law revenues received by him are not taxed or taxable under the provisions of the Income Tax laws and regulations thereunder promulgated, nor are any revenues received by him within the powers of the federal government to tax and that the revenues received by him are exempt from taxation by excise under the Constitution of the United States and that, therefore, an essential element of the charges, a “tax due and owing”, is absent in this case.
ARGUMENT AND LAW
There are three essential elements to the crime of tax evasion, namely (1) willfulness; (2) existence of a tax deficiency; and (3) an affirmative act constituting an evasion or attempted evasion of the tax. Sansone v. United States, 380 U.S. 343, at 351, 85 S.Ct. 1004, at 1010 (1965); United States v. Bishop, 264 F.3d 535 (5th Cir. 2001); United States v. Dack, 747 F.2d 1172, at 1174 (7th Cir. 1984); and United States v. Mal, 942 F.2d 682, at 687 (9th Cir. 1991); United States v.Silkman, 156 F.3d 833 (8th Cir. 1998). See also Lawn v. United States, 355 U.S. 339, at 361, 78 S.Ct. 311 (1958). Mr. Cryer strenuously denies all three elements, but the absence of any one element constitutes a defense and is fatal to the charge.
Reserving all rights and objections to the indictment previously raised, it is respectfully submitted that there is, as a matter of law, no tax deficiency due and owing by defendant.
TAX LAWS SUBJECT TO STRICT CONSTRUCTION
Tax laws are clearly in derogation of personal rights and property interests and are, therefore, subject to strict construction, and any ambiguity must be resolved against imposition of the tax. In Billings v. U.S., 232 U.S. 261, 34 S.Ct. 421 (1914), the Supreme Court clearly acknowledged this basic and long-standing rule of statutory construction:
“Tax statutes . . . should be strictly construed, and, if any ambiguity be found to exist, it must be resolved in favor of the citizen. Eidman v. Martinez, 184 U.S. 578, 583; United States v. Wigglesworth, 2 Story, 369, 374; Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Herold, 198 F. 199, 201, aff’d 201 F. 918; Parkview Bldg. Assn. v. Herold, 203 F. 876, 880; Mutual Trust Co. v. Miller, 177 N.Y. 51, 57.”
(Id at p. 265, emphasis added)

Again, in United States v. Merriam, 263 U.S. 179, 44 S.Ct. 69 (1923), the Supreme Court clearly stated at pp. 187-88:
“On behalf of the Government it is urged that taxation is a practical matter and concerns itself with the substance of the thing upon which the tax is imposed rather than with legal forms or expressions. But in statutes levying taxes the literal meaning of the words employed is most important, for such statutes are not to be extended by implication beyond the clear import of the language used. If the words are doubtful, the doubt must be resolved against the Government and in favor of the taxpayer. Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, 153.” (emphasis added)
This rule of strict construction against the taxing authority was reiterated in Tandy Leather Company v. United States, 347 F.2d 693 (5th Cir. 1965), where Judge Hutcheson of our 5th Circuit eloquently and unequivocally proclaimed at p. 694-5:
“. . . In ruling as he did, that the taxpayer had the obligation to show that sales of the articles in suit were not subject to the excise taxes collected, the district judge was misled by the erroneous contention of the tax collector into misstating the rule of proof in a tax case. This is: that the burden in such a case is always on the collector to show, in justification of his levy and collection of an excise tax, that the statute plainly and clearly lays the tax; that, in short, the fundamental rule is that taxes to be collectible must be clearly laid.

“The Government’s claim and the judge’s ruling come down in effect to the proposition that the state of construction of appellants’ kits had reached such an advanced level that the tax levied on the finished products could be collected on their sale, though none had been clearly laid thereon by statute. Shades of Pym and John Hampden, of the Boston tea party, and of Patrick Henry and the Virginians! There is no warrant in law for such a holding. Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, at p. 153, 38 S.Ct. 53, 62 L.Ed. 211. In 51 American Jurisprudence, “Taxation”, Sec. 316, “Strict or Liberal Construction”, supported by a great wealth of authority, it is said:
‘Although it is sometimes broadly stated either that tax laws are to be strictly construed or, on the other hand, that such enactments are to be liberally construed, this apparent conflict of opinion can be reconciled if it is borne in mind that the correct rule appears to be that where the intent of meaning of tax statutes, or statutes levying taxes, is doubtful, they are, unless a contrary legislative intention appears, to be construed most strongly against the government and in favor of the taxpayer or citizen. Any doubts as to their meaning are to be resolved against the taxing authority and in favor of the taxpayer. * * *’

“The judgment was wrong. It is, therefore, reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to enter judgment for plaintiffs and for further and not inconsistent proceedings.” (emphasis is the Court’s) See also: Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, 38 S.Ct. 53, 153 (1917); Royal Caribbean Cruises v. United States, 108 F.3d 290 (11th Cir. 1997); B & M Company v. United States, 452 F.2d 986 (5th Cir. 1971); Kocurek v. United States, 456 F. Supp. 740 (1978); Norton Manufacturing Corporation v. United States, 288 F. Supp. 829 (1968); Grays Harbor Chair and Manufacturing Company v. United States, 265 F. Supp. 254 (1967); Russell v. United States, 260 F. Supp. 493 (1966).
Thus, as we enter into the labyrinth of the Internal Revenue Code and its related regulations, we must do so mindful of the hornbook rule that tax laws are strictly construed and that when the letter of the law is subject to more than one interpretation, it must be construed against the imposition of the tax, the rule of interpretation of taxes being:
“that the burden in such a case is always on the collector to show, in justification of his levy and collection of an excise tax, that the statute plainly and clearly lays the tax; that, in short, the fundamental rule is that taxes to be collectible must be clearly laid.” Tandy Leather Company, supra, at 694. (emphasis added)

THE INCOME TAX LAW DOES NOT “PLAINLY AND CLEARLY LAY” ANY TAX UPON DEFENDANT OR HIS REVENUE

The Internal Revenue Code does not “Plainly and Clearly Lay” any liability for an income tax on defendant.
The Income Tax Law, Subtitle A of Title 26, United States Code, imposes a tax on the taxable income of certain individuals in § 1:
“26 U.S.C. § 1. Tax Imposed.
“(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses
“There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of —
“(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and
“(2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)), a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
. . .
“(b) Heads of households
“There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every head of a household (as defined in section 2(b)) a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
. . .
“(c) Unmarried individuals (other than surviving spouses and heads
of households) “There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual (other than a surviving spouse as defined in section 2(a) or the head of a household as defined in section 2(b)) who is not a married individual (as defined in section 7703) a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
. . .
“(d) Married individuals filing separate returns
“There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who does not make a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, a tax determined in accordance with the following table: . . .”
(emphasis added)

but this section does not designate anyone as liable for the payment of the tax.
It should be noted at this point that titles and headings, such as “Married individuals and surviving spouses filing joint returns” and “Heads of households” are not part of the law and have absolutely no legal effect. 26 U.S.C. § 7806. Therefore, the actual statute commences with “There is hereby imposed . . .” The imposition of the tax is on taxable income, only, not on any person or entity. In contrast, see 26 U.S.C. § 884, discussed more fully infra, which does impose a tax on an entity.
Subtitle A does, however, designate partners as liable for the taxes on income of a partnership, but only in their “individual” capacities (26 U.S.C. § 701) while certain partnerships are declared liable for excess recapture of credits (26 U.S.C. 704).
Foreign corporations are specifically designated as the party liable for payment of the “Branch profits tax” imposed by 26 U.S.C. § 884 (which, incidentally, does impose the tax on “any foreign corporation”).
The only other party that is identified in the income tax law as liable for the payment of any income tax is revealed in 26 U.S.C. § 1461:

“Sec. 1461. Liability for withheld tax
“Every person required to deduct and withhold any tax under this chapter is hereby made liable for such tax and is hereby indemnified against the claims and demands of any person for the amount of any payments made in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.”
(emphasis added)

“This chapter” is “Chapter 3 – Withholding Tax on Nonresident Aliens and Foreign Corporations”. Thus the liable party in this instance is anyone withholding tax on nonresident aliens and foreign corporations.
There are no other references in Subtitle A (the income tax law) to anyone being liable for the tax imposed by § 1 other than those: partners (but only in their “individual” capacity); certain large partnerships in certain excess credit situations; foreign corporations; and those withholding taxes on nonresident aliens and foreign corporations.
There is only one other party that is identified as being liable for the income tax, but to find that party we have to journey outside the realm of the income tax law to “Subtitle C – Employment Taxes”, where we find:
“Sec. 3403. Liability for tax
“The employer shall be liable for the payment of the tax required to be deducted and withheld under this chapter [“Subtitle C – Employment Taxes; Chapter 24 – Collection of Income Tax at Source on Wages”], and shall not be liable to any person for the amount of any such payment.” (emphasis and [bracketed material] added)
Thus, the only persons being assigned any liability for the income tax imposed by § 1 are those five instances — partners, certain large partnerships, foreign corporations, withholders of taxes on nonresident aliens and foreign corporations and those employers required by Chapter 24 of Subtitle C to withhold taxes on employees.
The absence, or near absence, of a statutory provision specifying exactly who is liable for a tax imposed is not customary. 26 U.S.C. §§ 2032A and 2056A specifically state who is liable for the Estate Tax; 26 U.S.C. § 3102(b) specifically states who is liable for the FICA tax;: 26 U.S.C. § 3202 specifically states who is liable for the Railroad Retirement Tax; 26 U.S.C. § 3505 specifically imposes liability for Employment Taxes; 26 U.S.C. §§ 4002 and 4003 specify not only who is primarily liable, but who is secondarily liable for the Luxury Passenger Automobile Excise Tax. See also: 26 U.S.C. §§ 4051 and 4052 (Heavy Trucks and Trailers Excise Tax); 26 U.S.C. § 4071 (Tire Manufacture Excise Tax); 26 U.S.C. § 4219 (Manufacturers Excise Tax); 26 U.S.C. § 4401 (Tax on Wagers); 26 U.S.C. § 4411 (Wagering Occupational Tax); 26 U.S.C. § 4483 (Vehicle Use Tax); 26 U.S.C. § 4611 (Tax on Petroleum); 26 U.S.C. § 4662 (Tax on Chemicals); 26 U.S.C. § 4972 (Tax on Contributions to Qualified Employer Pension Plans); 26 U.S.C. § 4980B (Excise Tax on Failure to Satisfy Continuation Coverage Requirements of Group Health Plans); 26 U.S.C. § 4980D (Excise Tax on Failure to Meet Certain Group Health Plan Requirements); 26 U.S.C. § 4980F (Excise Tax on Failure of Applicable Plans Reducing Benefit Accruals to Satisfy Notice Requirements); 26 U.S.C. § 5005 (Gallonage Tax on Distilled Spirits); 26 U.S.C. § 5043 (Gallonage Tax on Wines); 26 U.S.C. § 5232 (Storage Tax on Imported Distilled Spirits); 26 U.S.C. § 5364 (Tax on Wine Imported in Bulk); 26 U.S.C. § 5418 (Tax on Beer Imported in Bulk); 26 U.S.C. § 5703 (Excise Tax on Manufacture of Tobacco Products); and 26 U.S.C. § 5751 (Tax on Purchase, Receipt, Possession or Sale of Tobacco Products), to name a few. Considering the “standard in the drafting of taxation laws industry”, particularly in view of the requirement of strict construction, the limitation of liability to those five instances cannot be assumed to have been an oversight. In this instance the only ones liable are those specifically named as liable, just as in any other tax provision.
In United States v. Calamaro, 354 U.S. 351, 77 S.Ct. 1138 (1957), the Supreme Court reviewed the conviction of a “pick-up man” in a numbers game operation. Calamaro had been convicted of failure to pay an occupational tax, imposed not only on persons who are subject to the excise tax on being “engaged in the business” of wagering, but also on those who are “engaged in receiving wagers” on behalf of one subject to the excise tax.
Although the “pick-up man”, Calamaro, was the person who actually received the money from the players, handed out the betting slips to the players and was acting on behalf of the “banker”, the Supreme Court held that the he was not one who “engaged in receiving wagers” because “receiving wagers” meant accepting or entering into the wager, not receiving the money for the wager. See also Griffin v. United States, 588 F.2d 521 (5th Cir. 1979); Fine v. United States, 206 F.Supp. 520 (Colo. 1962); Drake v. United States, 355 F.Supp. 710 (ED Mo. 1973); and United States v. Mobil Corp, 543 F. Supp. 507 (ND Tex. 1981) (26 U.S.C. 6001 and 26 CFR 31.6001 stating records “shall at all times be available for inspection” by revenue officers did not permit IRS blanket access, without warrant or summons, to browse through employee W-4’s).
In Calamaro, the government cited a parallel regulation that more clearly included the “pick-up” man as one who “engaged in receiving wagers”, which the Supreme Court effortlessly dismissed: “Finally, the Government points to the fact that the Treasury Regulations relating to the statute purport to include the pick-up man among those subject to the § 3290 tax, and argues (a) that this constitutes an administrative interpretation to which we should give weight in construing the statute, particularly because (b) section 3290 was carried over in haec verba into § 4411 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. We find neither argument persuasive. In light of the above discussion, we cannot but regard this Treasury Regulation as no more than an attempted addition to the statute of something which is not there. As such the regulation can furnish no sustenance to the statute. Koshland v. Helvering, 298 U.S. 441, 446-447. Nor is the Government helped by its argument as to the 1954 Code. The regulation had been in effect for only three years, and there is nothing to indicate that it was ever called to the attention of Congress. The re-enactment of § 3290 in the 1954 Code was not accompanied by any congressional discussion which throws light on its intended scope. In such circumstances we consider the 1954 re- enactment to be without significance. Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 431. Calamaro, supra, at 358-9 (emphasis added)

See also, Water Quality Ass’n v. United States, 795 F.2d 1303 (7th Cir. 1986), where, citing and quoting Calamaro, the court added at p. 1309: “It is a basic principle of statutory construction that courts have no right first to determine the legislative intent of a statute and then, under the guise of its interpretation, proceed to either add words to or eliminate other words from the statute’s language. DeSoto Securities Co. v. Commissioner, 235 F.2d 409, 411 (7th Cir. 1956); see also 2A Sutherland Statutory Construction § 47.38 (4th ed. 1984). Similarly, the Secretary has no power to change the language of the revenue statutes because he thinks Congress may have overlooked something.” (emphasis added)
There is no dispute, nor does the government otherwise contend, that defendant, Mr. Cryer, is not a partner in any partnership, is not a large partnership, nor is he a foreign corporation. Mr. Cryer is not required to withhold any taxes on a nonresident alien nor on any foreign corporation, nor is he required by Chapter 24 of Subtitle C to withhold taxes on any fees he receives. Accordingly, the only way the income tax law could be interpreted as imposing any liability for income tax upon Mr. Cryer is by inference or implication. “But in statutes levying taxes the literal meaning of the words employed is most important, for such statutes are not to be extended by implication beyond the clear import of the language used. If the words are doubtful, the doubt must be resolved against the Government and in favor of the taxpayer.” Merriam, supra.
If the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, even considering those outside the Income Tax Law (Subtitle A) fail to “plainly and clearly” lay liability for the tax upon Mr. Cryer, then they cannot be given that effect through strained interpretations, implication or inference. Nevertheless, the government claims that Mr. Cryer owes income taxes “though none had been clearly laid thereon by statute. Shades of Pym and John Hampden, of the Boston tea party, and of Patrick Henry and the Virginians! There is no warrant in law for such a holding.” Tandy Leather, supra.
It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that there is no statute that renders Mr. Cryer liable for an income tax, and, therefore, he is not so liable. Absent a lawful liability for taxes, the essential element, liability for a tax deficiency, is lacking in this case as a matter of law, and, accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that both counts of the indictment should be dismissed, with prejudice. 20
The Internal Revenue Code does not “Plainly and Clearly Lay” a tax on any of defendant’s revenues.
The same rigid rule of strict construction laid down by the Supreme Court in Billings, Merriam, Gould and Calamaro, supra, applies to the question of what is taxed as well as who is made liable for the tax.
Our second foray into the labyrinth begins as the first, with § 1, which imposes a tax “on taxable income.” The first order of business is to determine the definition of the terms in order to define the scope of the tax. However, the first observation is stunning. Although the first 1,564 sections of the Internal Revenue Code are devoted to the Income Tax, the term “income”, the very subject of the tax, is not defined. Nor is the term defined in any of the related regulations promulgated by the Treasury Department. Nor is the term “taxable” defined in the Code or regulations.
The closest thing we have to definitions of “income” and “taxable” are all qualified, “hybrid”, definitions, income linked with another term. Thus when a body of statutory law fails to provide a definition of a term, we must use its customary meaning. Turning to dictionaries, we find: 21
Webster’s Dictionary:
Income. “A gain or recurrent benefit usually measured in money that derives from capital or labor”
(emphasis added)
Black’s Law Dictionary:
Income. “The return in money from one’s business, labor or capital invested; gains, profits or private revenue.”
(emphasis added)
and, since federal law provides no definition, we look to other laws:
Louisiana Civil Code:
“Art. 551. Kinds of fruits
“Fruits are things that are produced by or derived from another thing without diminution of its substance.
“There are two kinds of fruits; natural fruits and civil fruits.
“Natural fruits are products of the earth or of animals.
“Civil fruits are revenues derived from a thing by operation of law or by reason of a juridical act, such as rentals, interest, and certain corporate distributions.” (emphasis added) 22

In the Code we find hybrid definitions for “ordinary income” and “gross income”:
“26 U.S.C. § 64. Ordinary Income Defined.
“For purposes of this subtitle, the term “ordinary income” includes any gain from the sale or exchange of property which is neither a capital asset nor property described in section 1231(b). Any gain from the sale or exchange of property which is treated or considered, under other provisions of this subtitle, as “ordinary income” shall be treated as gain from the sale or exchange of property which is neither a capital asset nor property described in section 1231(b).”

While the significance or import of the phrase “from whatever source derived” will be more fully discussed below, it is important at this point to at least note that the phrase “from whatever source derived” is tracked from the Sixteenth Amendment, which provided that an income tax could not be classified as a direct tax by virtue of the source of that income. Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236 (1916); Tyee Realty Co. v. Anderson, 240 U.S. 115, 36 S.Ct. 281 (1916); Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 36 S.Ct. 278 (1916) This Amendment was adopted in order to overrule Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and T. Co., 157 U.S. 537, 15 S.Ct. 673 (1895), which held that a tax on income derived from property burdened the property and was, therefore, a direct property tax subject to the requirement of apportionment. Therefore, the reference to “from whatever source derived” is not an indication that Congress may tax any income from any source, but is only an indication that an income tax (and a tax only on income) is not to be classified as a direct tax, subject to the requirement of apportionment, by virtue of the source of the income. This is not to say that the tax is to be applied and charged against all income without regard to its source.

The 16th Amendment did not expand the scope of Congress’ power to tax (Brushaber, Stanton, Tyee, supra et al.), thus although the source of income is no longer a factor in determining whether the tax is direct or indirect, neither the jurisdiction of the federal government nor its taxing authority was enlarged to include authority to tax activities and privileges that it could not have taxed before the 16th Amendment. Source of income, then, is still a factor in determining the scope of the taxing authority of the federal government. (See discussions of Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U.S. 20, 36 S.Ct. 236 (1916); McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819); and others, infra) As we will see, those factors were also taken into consideration in the determination of taxable income in the Code and regulations.
The obvious common usage for the term “taxable”, although not readily found in Websters, is “able to be taxed”, i.e., within the authority of a government to tax.
And finally, we have the hybrid definition of “taxable income”:

26 U.S.C. § 63. Taxable Income Defined.
(a) In general
Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction).

Thus, when we combine the definitions we have, now, we have:
Income = gains, profits, from capital, labor or both
Taxable = within the authority of the government to tax

Thus, “taxable income” would be all gain [from activities that are within the authority of the federal government to tax] derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined from whatever source [that is within the authority of the federal government to tax] derived, and including certain enumerated items such as gains, or profits, from compensation for services, minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction).
“Whatever” does not identify those sources that are within the authority of the federal government to tax, but in checking the index under “Income Tax” we find “sources” and we also find “within the U.S.” In order to determine what income is taxable the index of the Code designates the starting point as 26 U.S.C. § 861:
26 U.S.C. § 861. Income from Sources within the United States.
(a) Gross income from sources within United States
The following items of gross income shall be treated as income from sources within the United States:
[This section goes on to list items of gross income, but does not define source nor does it specify any sources. Following the statutory text, however, we are referred to the Code of Federal Regulations:] “CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS
“General regulations, see 26 CFR Sec. 1.861-1.
“. . . .
“Computation of taxable income from sources within U.S. and from other sources and activities, see 26 CFR Sec. 1.861-8.” (emphasis and [bracketed material] added)

So, now our journey into the labyrinth continues into the Code of Federal Regulations:
“26 C.F.R. § 1.861-1 Income from sources within the United States.
“(a) Categories of income.
Part I (section 861 and following), subchapter N, chapter 1 of the Code, and the regulations thereunder determine the sources of income for purposes of the income tax. These sections explicitly allocate certain important sources of income to the United States or to areas outside the United States, as the case may be; and, with respect to the remaining income (particularly that derived partly from sources within and partly from sources without the United States), authorize the Secretary or his delegate to determine the income derived from sources within the United States, either by rules of separate allocation or by processes or formulas of general apportionment. The statute provides for the following three categories of income:
“(1) Within the United States. The gross income from sources within the United States, consisting of the items of gross income specified in section 861(a) plus the items of gross income allocated or apportioned 27 to such sources in accordance with section 863(a). See 26 C.F.R. §§ 1.861-2 to 1.861-7, inclusive, and 26 C.F.R. § 1.863-1. The taxable income from sources within the United States, in the case of such income, shall be determined by deducting therefrom, in accordance with sections 861(b) and 863(a), the expenses, losses, and other deductions properly apportioned or allocated thereto and a ratable part of any other expenses, losses, or deductions which cannot definitely be allocated to some item or class of gross income. See 26 C.F.R. §§ 1.861-8 and 1.863-1.” (emphasis added)

There are two distinct provisions contained in this regulation that warrant our attention. First, the section informs us that §§ 861 et seq. are to be used to determine taxable income, but, equally significant, is, second, that besides the deductions of expenses, losses and other deductions referred to in 26 U.S.C. § 63 (taxable income = gross income less deductions), we are now made aware that there are either items or sources of income that CANNOT be (as opposed to “are not”) included in gross income to begin with. The inescapable conclusion from this revelation is that not all income is includable in gross income, reaffirming our previous discussion of “from whatever source derived” as being reflective of the 16th Amendment’s prohibition of considering the source in classifying the income tax as anything other than an excise, rather than defining the scope of the tax to include “each and every” source. 28
Now, in order to determine which sources can be considered in determining taxable income and, conversely, which sources cannot be included in gross income to begin with, § 1.861-1(a)(1) directs us to § 1.861-8:
“26 C.F.R. § 1.861-8 Computation of taxable income from sources within the United States and from other sources and activities.
“(a)In general — (1) Scope. Sections 861(b) and 863(a) state in general terms how to determine taxable income of a taxpayer from sources within the United States after gross income from sources within the United States has been determined.
[This again confirms that gross income from within the U.S. “whatever” sources derived is not necessarily subject to federal taxation. “Taxable” income, therefore, must be something less than all income from within from “whatever” source. Therefore, some sources within the United States are taxable and some sources within the United States are NOT taxable.]
“Sections 862(b) and 863(a) state in general terms how to determine taxable income of a taxpayer from sources without the United States after gross income from sources without the United States has been determined. This section provides specific guidance for applying the cited Code sections by prescribing rules for the allocation and apportionment of expenses, losses, and other deductions (referred to collectively in this section as deductions”) of the taxpayer. The rules contained in this section apply in determining taxable income of the taxpayer from specific sources and activities under other sections of the Code, referred to in this section as operative sections. See paragraph (f)(1) of this section for a list and description of operative sections.” (emphasis and [bracketed material] added)

So, what does paragraph (f)(1) of this section identify as those specific sources and activities that determine whether income is taxable?
“(f) Miscellaneous matters —
“(1) Operative sections. The operative sections of the Code which require the determination of taxable income of the taxpayer from specific sources or activities and which give rise to statutory groupings to which this section is applicable include the sections described below.
“(i) Overall limitation to the foreign tax credit.
“(ii) [Reserved]
“(iii) DISC and FSC taxable income.
“(iv) Effectively connected taxable income. Nonresident alien individuals and foreign corporations engaged in trade or business within the United States….
“(v) Foreign base company income.
“(vi) Other operative sections. The rules provided in this section also apply in determining – –
“(A) The amount of foreign source items of tax preference under section 58(g) determined for purposes of the minimum tax;
“(B) The amount of foreign mineral income under section 901(e);
“(C) [Reserved]
“(D) The amount of foreign oil and gas extraction income and the amount of foreign oil related income under section 907;
“(E) [Reserved] [The tax base for citizens entitled to the benefits of § 931 and the § 936 tax credit of a domestic corporation which has an election in effect under §936 – – deleted by amendment]
“(F) [Reserved] [The exclusion for income from Puerto Rico for residents of Puerto Rico – – deleted by amendment]
“(G) The limitation under section 934 on the maximum reduction in income tax liability incurred to the Virgin Islands;
“(H) [Reserved] [Income derived from Guam – – deleted by amendment]
“(I) The special deduction granted to China Trade Act corporations
under section 941;
“(J) The amount of certain U.S. source income excluded from the subpart F income of a controlled foreign corporation under section 952(b);
“(K) The amount of income from the insurance of U.S. risks under section 953(b)(5) [dealing with foreign corporations];
“(L) The international boycott factor and the specifically attributable taxes and income under section 999; and
“(M) The taxable income attributable to the operation of an agreement vessel under section 607 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as amended, and the Capital Construction Fund Regulations thereunder (26 CFR, part 3). See 26 CFR 3.2(b)(3).” (emphasis and [bracketed material] added)

These sources, then, are what remains after deducting those items that “cannot” “be allocated to some item or class of gross income”. 26 CFR § 1.861-1
Whence came this acknowledgement that not all income, “from whatever source derived”, is to be included in gross income?
Prior to 1954, the income tax was levied upon “net income”. Gross income was, pursuant to the preceding act, the 1939 Code, determined in accordance with the 1940 regulations, of which § 19.22(b)-1 provided:
“(b) Exclusions from gross income — The following items shall not be included in gross income and shall be exempt from taxation under this chapter:
“Sec. 19.22(b)-1. Exemptions—Exclusions from gross income—Certain items of income specified in section 22(b) are exempt from tax and may be excluded from gross income. These items, however, are exempt only to the extent and in the amount specified. No other items are exempt from gross income except (1) those items of income which are, under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government; (2) those items of income which are exempt from tax on income under the provisions of any Act of Congress still in effect: and (3) the income exempted under the provisions of section 116. Since the tax is imposed on net income, the exemption referred to above is not to be confused with the deductions allowed by section 23 and other provisions of the Internal Revenue Code to be made from gross income in computing net income. As to other items not to be included in gross income, see sections 112 and 119 [the predecessor of the current 1.861-1 et seq.] . . . ”
(emphasis and [bracketed material] added)

The previous regulations for the income tax laws contained similar, if not identical, acknowledgements that not all income is Constitutionally taxable by the federal government (early versions referred to exempt income being that which is not taxable by the federal government “under fundamental law”).
The admission made in these regulations is nothing less than shocking. Gross income is defined in the 1939 Code § 22(a) as virtually everything. Code § 22(b) lists some exemptions, like tax free interest and life insurance. But then the government admits, mumbling up its sleeve, that some of those things listed in § 22(a) are also exempt because they are, “under the Constitution, not taxable by the federal government.” If some of those items are not taxable, then why include them in gross income in the first place?
Not to make light of the gravity of the matter before the Court, but the best way to illustrate the import of this revelation is to imagine a new game show: Welcome to another exciting episode of “What’s My Tax” with your host, Manny Hauls. Our contestant today is John Q. Public! Are you up there John? Well, COME ON DOWN! Now, as you can see, Johnny, we have an array of doors here, salaries, compensation for services, rents, dividends, interest, and. . .well, there are too many for us to read them all off, but you can see them.
Now, Johnny, as you can see, we’ve already marked some of those doors for you, like “life insurance” over there, “tax-free interest” back here, just to get you started, but here’s the good news: Some of these other doors are actually Constitutionally EXEMPT! That’s right, Johnny, EXEMPT! So here’s the deal: You pick one of the doors, and if that door is correct, you get an EXEMPTION!! and you get to keep the money we aren’t allowed to take. How’s that for a prize? (audience cheers)
But here’s the catch: If you choose the wrong door, Beulah the chimp will blow her horn and you get the booby prize: INTEREST and PENALTIES!! (audience goes “Aawwww”) This would be funny if it were not true.
Similarly, in the 1939 Code itself, there is a clear indication that not all income is Constitutionally taxable income, notwithstanding the 16th Amendment and its “from whatever source derived” phrase. § 115(f)(1) and (h)(2) of the 1939 Code provide:
“(f) (1) GENERAL RULE—A distribution made by a corporation to its shareholders in its stock or a right to acquire its stock shall not be treated as a dividend to the extent that it does not constitute income to the shareholder within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
. . .
“(h) EFFECT ON EARNINGS AND PROFITS OF DISTRIBUTION OF STOCKS—The distribution (whether before January 1, 1939, or on or after such date) to a distributee by or on behalf of a corporation of its stock or securities, of stock or securities of another corporation, or of property or money, shall not be considered a distribution of earnings or profits of any corporation . . .
“(2) if the distribution was not subject to tax in the hands of such distributee because it did not constitute income to him within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution or because exempt to him under section 115(f) of the Revenue Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 712, or a corresponding provision of a prior Revenue Act.” (emphasis added)

Thus, prior to 1954 the tax was imposed on “net income” and although the Code and the regulations did not disclose what income is beyond the ability of the federal government to tax, nor did they disclose what income is not included within the meaning of “income” in the 16th Amendment, at least it did disclose that some items or sources of income are exempt from taxation.
While the citizen seeking to understand what was expected of him would have to conduct a great deal of legal research to identify the limits of the federal taxing authority and to determine what income is and is not included within the meaning of the 16th Amendment, at least he was, to some extent, “on notice” to look for those exemptions.
The 1954 Code and the regulations promulgated thereunder, which was not considered to have made any significant substantive changes in the income tax law (and which, certainly, did not enlarge the Constitutional scope of federal taxation authority nor the Constitutional definition of “income”), primarily reordered and renumbered the old Code and regulations. The new Code, however, made two very significant “adjustments”.
First, the tax was now imposed on “taxable” income. While the term is defined in its hybrid form, “taxable income”, in § 63 (drawing our attention from the separate meanings of the words), when placed in context with the second major “adjustment”, the term “taxable” income becomes monumentally significant.
Second, except for 26 CFR 1.312-6, each and every reference to the Constitution, to fundamental law, to limitations on the federal taxing authority and to the Sixteenth Amendment’s meaning of “income” was purged, erased, banished from both the Code and the regulations.
The previous disclosures of Constitutional exemptions, exemptions under fundamental law, Constitutional limitations of federal taxing authority and the qualified scope of the word “income” within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment, were no longer deemed necessary. Since the imposition of the tax itself was limited by changing “net income” to “taxable” income, imposing the tax only on that income the federal government was Constitutionally entitled, able, to tax, tax-able, thereby, technically, excluding all Constitutionally exempt or excluded income from the effects of the tax. By excluding exempt and excluded income in the imposition itself, there was apparently no longer any need perceived by the government to disclose that not all income is “taxable” income.
Thus, § 861 of the Code and its parallel regulations, 26 CFR 1.861-1 et seq. are vestigial disclosures, what is left of the previous § 22(b) exemptions and § 115 qualifications of the meaning of “income”. There is, however, another vestigial remnant of those disclosures. Conducting a search of the regulations for “exempt”, we are, not surprisingly, led back to § 861, more particularly, 26 CFR 1.861-8T(d)(2)(ii) and (iii):
“(ii) Exempt income and exempt asset defined — (A) In general. For purposes of this section, the term exempt income means any income that is, in whole or in part, exempt, excluded, or eliminated for federal income tax purposes. The term exempt asset means any asset the income from which is, in whole or in part, exempt, excluded, or eliminated for federal tax purposes. [Note the absence of reference to “fundamental law”, “under the Constitution, not taxable by the federal government”, or “not income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment”]
“(iii) Income that is not considered tax exempt.
“The following items are not considered to be exempt, eliminated, or excluded income and, thus, may have expenses, losses, or other deductions allocated and apportioned to them:
“(A) In the case of a foreign taxpayer (including a foreign sales corporation (FSC)) computing its effectively connected income, gross income (whether domestic or foreign source) which is not effectively connected to the conduct of a United States trade or business;
“(B) In computing the combined taxable income of a DISC or FSC [international or foreign sales corporation] and its related supplier, the gross income of a DISC or a FSC;
“(C) For all purposes under subchapter N of the Code, including the computation of combined taxable income of a possessions corporation and its affiliates under section 936(h), the gross income of a possessions corporation for which a credit is allowed under section 936(a); and
“(D) Foreign earned income as defined in section 911 and the regulations thereunder (however, the rules of Sec. 1.911-6 do not require the allocation and apportionment of certain deductions, including home mortgage interest, to foreign earned income for purposes of determining the deductions disallowed under section 911(d)(6)).” (emphasis and [bracketed material] added)

Although this provision defines exempt income, it, again and still, does not identify or refer us to what those exemptions are or upon what they are based. Instead, it tells us what is NOT exempt, leading to the reasonable supposition that any income other than that which is not exempt is, or at least may very well be, “exempt, excluded or eliminated” from federal income tax.
Congress and the Treasury Department have statutorily and through regulations, respectively, acknowledged that there are limitations upon Congress’ power to tax and that there are items and sources of income that are Constitutionally exempt from taxation by the federal government. 1939 Code and 1940 regulations, supra. The present Code and regulations acknowledge that some income CANNOT be attributed to gross income; that some income is exempt from taxation; that the current Code and regulations specify those sources that CAN be included in gross income for determination of taxable income (§ 1.861-8(f)(1)) and specify those items that are not exempt (§ 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii)).
Remembering that tax laws must be strictly construed and that any ambiguity must be resolved against imposition of the tax, it can, therefore, only be concluded that sources of income other than those enumerated cannot be included in gross income and that items of income other than those items of income specified as not exempt, are exempt from the federal income tax. With the sole exception of those sources specifically identified as taxable and those items specifically identified as not exempt, it cannot be said that the tax has “been plainly and clearly laid” on any other sources or items of income. Billings, Merriam, Gould, Tandy Leather, supra.
There is no dispute, nor does the government otherwise contend, that Mr. Cryer has received no income, gains, from any of the taxable sources enumerated nor has he received any non-exempt items of income specified, and, therefore, that no tax has been clearly laid on the fees received by Mr. Cryer for legal services.
It is a virtual certainty that the government will argue that there is another interpretation of the Codal and regulatory provisions detailed hereinabove, “But in statutes levying taxes the literal meaning of the words employed is most important, for such statutes are not to be extended by implication beyond the clear import of the language used. If the words are doubtful, the doubt must be resolved against the Government and in favor of the taxpayer.” Merriam, supra.
If the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, even considering those outside the Income Tax Law (Subtitle A) fail to “plainly and clearly” lay a tax upon Mr. Cryer’s revenues, then they cannot be given that effect through strained interpretations, implication or inference. Nevertheless, the government claims that Mr. Cryer owes income taxes on those revenues “though none had been clearly laid thereon by statute. Shades of Pym and John Hampden, of the Boston tea party, and of Patrick Henry and the Virginians! There is no warrant in law for such a holding.” Tandy Leather, supra.
It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that the Internal Revenue Code and regulations do not plainly and clearly impose a tax on Mr. Cryer’s revenues, and, therefore, there can be no federal income tax owed thereon. Without “plain and clear” imposition of taxes there can be no tax deficiency and that essential element, liability for a tax deficiency, is lacking in this case as a matter of law. Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that both counts of the indictment should be dismissed, with prejudice.

DEFENDANT’S REVENUES ARE NOT SUBJECT TO FEDERAL TAXATION BY EXCISE

The Federal Taxing Power

The Supreme Court has on countless occasions described the taxing power of the federal government as “all encompassing”, and from one standpoint it is “all encompassing”. The manner and means of exercising that “all encompassing” power of taxation are not, however, limitless. A review of the Constitutional provisions specifying those means is helpful in understanding those limitations.
Article I, § 2, cl. 3:
“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers… .”
Article I, § 8, cl. 1:
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States… .”
Article I, § 9, cl. 4:
“No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken… .”
To these provisions has been added:
“Amendment XVI – Status of Income Tax Clarified.
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

In these provisions are incorporated the long-standing practice and understanding that all taxes must fall into one of two classes, direct or indirect, with duties, imposts and excises being considered as indirect and taxes on property or person as direct.
The limitation on direct taxes is perfectly harmonious and parallel to the intent of the framers in restricting the powers of the new federal government, keeping it at arms length from the citizens of the “Free and Independent States.”1 The gravest concern of both the States and the People was that the federal government would seek to govern the People, whether through regulation or by taxation, a role generally regarded as the exclusive realm of the States—something neither the People nor the States were willing to tolerate or permit. Congress was permitted to tax the public, but only indirectly. Any tax on person or property had to be imposed through the States, not directly upon any citizen. The States, not Congress, would then decide through what means and from what resources the tax, more like an assessment, would be paid.
[1 An understanding of the distinction between the nature of the individual and free-standing sovereignty of the States and the restricted and conditional sovereignty conferred by the Constitution is inherent in the fact that the Declaration of Independence did not establish the independence of the “United States”, but only of the “Free and Independent States.” ]

There are no Constitutional limitations upon the subject of a direct tax, and, therefore, it can honestly be said that the taxing authority of Congress is “all encompassing.” For example, Congress could pass a one dollar tax on each foot of beach frontage, but that tax would not be imposed on citizens owning beach-front property. The total amount of the tax would be calculated and then apportioned among the States, each State receiving an assessment for its apportioned share of the total, and without regard to the fact that most States have no beach frontage.
Indirect taxation, however, was limited by its definition, which excludes the taxation of person or property from its class of taxation. This form of taxation differed in more than the question of means and manner, that distinction being that every indirect tax is voluntary upon and avoidable by the citizen. Any tax upon an activity can be avoided by choosing not to engage in the taxed activity. Thus, the citizen “accedes” or “consents” to the tax by engaging in the activity that is taxed. In this vein, a tax upon the activity of breathing, being unavoidable and not, at least reasonably, within the ability of the citizen to abstain, would not be an indirect tax. While at least in theory a breathing tax could be imposed, it would have to be considered direct and apportioned among the States.
The primary issue, then, in any act of taxation by Congress is whether the tax is indirect, in which case the tax must meet the requirement of uniformity, or direct, in which case the tax must be apportioned among the states. That issue surfaced almost immediately. In Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796), the Supreme Court was required to address a challenge that a tax on carriages “for the conveyance of persons” was a direct tax on property, carriages. The Court, however, distinguished between a tax on the ownership of property and one on the consumption (since carriages wear out) of the property, i.e., an avoidable activity, and upheld the tax as an excise, not requiring apportionment.
In 1861 the first tax on income was enacted. It imposed a tax on all income derived from property and was generally considered and implemented as, although no formal challenge was ruled upon, an indirect excise tax on the use of the property for gain. Thus the lines of demarcation between the two taxes, primarily due to Hylton, becomes clearer. A tax on property or person is a direct tax, requiring apportionment, and a tax on privileged and avoidable activities is an indirect tax, requiring uniformity.
The questions remaining, however, are: 1) What is the scope of taxation authority of the federal government in general? And 2) What activities may be the {2 It should be noted, in passing, that the taxing authority in this instance is of a full, free-standing sovereignty, not a limited or conditional sovereignty or sovereignty by convention. } proper subject of an excise tax? No determination of the extent of the federal taxing authority can be made without first answering those two questions.
The answer to the first was not long in coming. The scope of taxing authority was first and thoroughly dealt with in 1819 in McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819). The Supreme Court was required to define the limits of taxing authority a State2, Maryland, due to its attempt to tax the national bank, a body established by Congress. Justice Marshall, at p. 429:
“It may be objected to this definition, that the power of taxation is not confined to the people and property of a state. It may be exercised upon every object brought within its jurisdiction. This is true, But to what source do we trace this right? It is obvious, that it is an incident of sovereignty, and is co-extensive with that to which it is an incident. All subjects over which the sovereign power of a state extends, are objects of taxation; but those over which it does not extend, are, upon the soundest principles, exempt from taxation. This proposition may almost be pronounced self-evident.
“The sovereignty of a state extends to everything which exists by its own authority, or is introduced by its permission.” (emphasis added)

[3 This brief description of the legislative power and sovereignty of the state is found in a variety of subsequent decisions and is thus a well established principle; see Weston v. City Council of Charlston, 2 Pet. (27 U.S.) 449, 467 (1829); The Providence Bank v. Billings, 4 Pet. (29 U.S.) 514, 564 (1830); The Piqua Branch of the State Bank of Ohio v. Knoop, 16 How. 369, 409 (1853); People of State of New York, ex rel. of the Bank of Commerce v. Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments for the City and County of New York, 67 U.S. 620, 632 (1863); Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Peniston, 85 U.S. 5, 38 (1873); The Wheeling, Parkersburg and Cincinnati Trans. Co. v. City of Wheeling, 99 U.S. 273, 279 (1879); Society for Savings v. Coite, 73 U.S. 594, 604 (1868); Van Brocklin v. Tennessee, 117 U.S. 151, 155, 6 S.Ct. 670 (1886); United States v. Rickert, 188 U.S. 432, 438, 23 S.Ct. 478 (1903); First National Bank in St. Louis v. Missouri, 263 U.S. 640, 663, 44 S.Ct. 213 (1924); Detroit v. Murray Corp. of America, 355 U.S. 489, 497, 78 S.Ct. 458 (1958); ]

It should be noted that these principles are not some antiquated philosophical enunciations, but are foundational Constitutional law, in full force and effect3 and relied upon hundreds of times by our courts, even as recently as this year (See U.S. v. Reynard, 02-50476 (9th Cir. 1-12-2007)).
Also noteworthy, is that in defining the extent of the taxing authority of a sovereignty as co-extensive with its jurisdiction, and, particularly, in defining all without that jurisdiction to be exempt from that authority, we are not hearing this from one who is unsympathetic to the powers of government. Marshall was a staunch Federalist. McCulloch is best known and remembered for its expansion of federal authority and his maximal views of jurisdiction are best evidenced in this ruling, where he holds that “not delegated” does not mean “not delegated” because it does not say “not expressly delegated” (at 406) and that “necessary” does not mean “necessary” because it does not say “absolutely necessary” (at 414).
It can safely be said, then, that the recognition of a State’s power to tax, which would either exceed or at least equal that of a sovereignty by convention, as co-extensive with its jurisdiction, would be an ample standard to apply in surveying the authority of the federal government to tax. Therefore, if we proceed with this analysis on the basis of assigning to the federal government the full taxing authority, subject to the restrictions on manner and means of that taxation, of an original and free-standing sovereignty, such as a State, we can be assured that we will not be undercutting or minimizing that authority.
From McCulloch, then, we can conclude:

A. The power to tax is co-extensive with the jurisdiction of the taxing authority;
B. All things without that jurisdiction are exempt from taxation by the taxing authority; and
C. The jurisdiction of a sovereignty extends to all things that exist by its authority or are introduced with its permission.

Since the taxing authority of the federal government, then, is co-extensive with it’s jurisdiction, a survey of that jurisdiction is necessary in order to define the limits of that taxing authority. Prior to doing so, there is another bookend to the extent of taxing authority. McCulloch not only delineated and defined the area or scope over which a sovereignty may exercise its power to tax, but also defined those areas over which a sovereignty may NOT exercise its power to tax. Marshall at 431:
That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create; that there is a plain repugnance in conferring on one government a power to control the constitutional measures of another, which other, with respect to those very measures, is declared to be supreme over that which exerts the control, are propositions not to be denied. (emphasis added)

That answers the question of whether a State can tax those matters that are under the jurisdiction of the federal government and where the federal government’s authority over those matters is supreme, but what about the reverse of that issue? Who is the supreme authority over those matters within the State’s jurisdiction? The answer to that question was also provided by the Supreme Court in Farrington v. Tennessee, 95 U.S. 679 (1877)4, where the Supreme Court recognized that in the areas within State jurisdiction, State law is supreme to that of the federal government. Farrington at 685:
[4 Nor is Farrington a relic of bygone days, it is still controlling Constitutional law, having been cited and followed over one hundred thirty times and as recently as 2005, See Loeffel Steel Products, Inc. v. Delta Brands, Inc., (N.D.Ill. 01 C 9389, 7/28/2005) ]

“In cases involving Federal questions affecting a State, the State cannot be regarded as standing alone. It belongs to a union consisting of itself and all its sister States. The Constitution of that union, and “the laws made in pursuance thereof, are the supreme law of the land, . . . any thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding;” and that law is as much a part of the law of every State as its own local laws and Constitution. Farmers’ & Mechanics’ Bank v. Deering, 91 U.S. 29.
“Yet every State has a sphere of action where the authority of the national government may not intrude. Within that domain the State is as if the union were not. Such are the checks and balances in our complicated but wise system of State and national polity.” (emphasis added)

Thus, just as the State’s power of taxation may not be exercised over those items within its borders where federal jurisdiction is supreme, the federal government’s authority to tax may not be exercised over those items or activities over which the jurisdiction of the State government is supreme. The principle is further reinforced by the Supreme Court again, in Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Company (Child Labor Case), 259 U.S. 20, 42 S.Ct. 449 (1922)5, in which case the Supreme Court struck down a federal tax on the employment of children. Chief Justice Taft, writing at p. 37: 5 Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. is still controlling Constitutional law, having been cited and followed as controlling nearly 200 times and as recently as 2005, see Simpson v. U.S., 877 A.2d 1045 (D.C. 2005)
“It is the high duty and function of this court in cases regularly brought to its bar to decline to recognize or enforce seeming laws of Congress, dealing with subjects not entrusted to Congress but left or committed by the supreme law of the land to the control of the States. We can not avoid the duty even though it require us to refuse to give effect to legislation designed to promote the highest good. The good sought in unconstitutional legislation is an insidious feature because it leads citizens and legislators of good purpose to promote it without thought of the serious breach it will make in the ark of our covenant or the harm which will come from breaking down recognized standards. In the maintenance of local self government, on the one hand, and the national power, on the other, our country has been able to endure and prosper for near a century and a half.
“Out of a proper respect for the acts of a coordinate branch of the Government, this court has gone far to sustain taxing acts as such, even though there has been ground for suspecting from the weight of the tax it was intended to destroy its subject. But, in the act before us, the presumption of validity cannot prevail, because the proof of the contrary is found on the very face of its provisions. Grant the validity of this law, and all that Congress would need to do, hereafter, in seeking to take over to its control any one of the great number of subjects of public interest, jurisdiction of which the States have never parted with, and which are reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment, would be to enact a detailed measure of complete regulation of the subject and enforce it by a so-called tax upon departures from it. To give such magic to the word “tax” would be to break down all constitutional limitation of the powers of Congress and completely wipe out the sovereignty of the States.” (emphasis added)

And in Hill v. Wallace, 259 U.S. 44, 42 S.Ct. 453 (1922), wherein the Court struck down a federal tax on grain contracts. Chief Justice Taft, again, at p. 67:
“Our decision, just announced, in the Child Labor Tax Case, ante, 20, involving the constitutional validity of the Child Labor Tax Law, completely covers this case. We there distinguish between cases like Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533, and McCray v. United States, 195 U.S. 27, in which it was held that this court could not limit the discretion of Congress in the exercise of its constitutional powers to levy excise taxes because the court might deem the incidence of the tax oppressive or even destructive. It was pointed out that in none of those cases did the law objected to show on its face, as did the Child Labor Tax Law, detailed regulation of a concern or business wholly within the police power of the State, with a heavy exaction to promote the efficacy of such regulation.” (emphasis added)

Justice Sutherland, dissenting in Burnes Nat’l Bank v. Duncan, 265 U.S. 17 (1924), a case involving a national bank’s right to appointment as executor of an estate, reminded us of this important principle at p. 26:
It is fundamental, under our dual system of government, that the Nation and the State are supreme and independent, each within its own sphere of action; and that each is exempt from the interference or control of the other in respect of its governmental powers, and the means employed in their exercise. Bank of Commerce v. New York City, 2 Black, 620, 634; South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 452, et seq.; Farrington v. Tennessee, 95 U.S. 679, 685. “How their respective laws shall be enacted; how they shall be carried into execution; and in what tribunals, or by what officers; and how much discretion, or whether any at all shall be vested in their officers, are matters subject to their own control, and in the regulation of which neither can interfere with the other.” Tarble’s Case, 13 Wall. 397, 407-8. Except as otherwise provided by the Constitution, the sovereignty of the States “can be no more invaded by the action of the general government, than the action of the state governments can arrest or obstruct the course of the national power. Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515, 570.” (emphasis added)

Thus, the taxing authority of the federal government ends where the regulatory authority of the States begin and are, therefore, limited to those areas of activities over which the States granted the federal government authority and those lands the States granted permission to the federal government to acquire for specific purposes. Accordingly, the Constitution affords federal legislative jurisdiction over certain enumerated areas of activity and exclusive legislative jurisdiction over certain geographic areas:
Article I, § 8:
To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises
To borrow Money
To regulate commerce with foreign Nations, among the States and with Indian Tribes
To establish uniform Rules of Naturalization
To enact Laws on Bankruptcy
To coin Money, regulate the value thereof and of foreign Coin
To fix the Standard of Weights and Measures
To provide for Punishment of counterfeiting
To establish Post Offices and post Roads
To make Patent and Copyright laws
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations
To declare War, Grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water
To raise and support and regulate Armies and a Navy and to regulate the Militia
To call out the Militia
To govern the District of Columbia [infra]
To make laws “necessary and proper” to enforce the Constitution
Enabling Clauses:
To enforce 13th Amendment [abolition of slavery]
To enforce 14th Amendment [equal protection of the law]
To enforce 15th Amendment [right to vote]
To enforce 19th Amendment [women’s suffrage]
To enforce 23rd Amendment [prohibition of poll tax]
Exclusive legislative authority:
Article II, § 8, cl. 17:
“To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District [of Columbia] (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.”
Article III, § 2:
“The congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States. . .”
([bracketed material] added)
That Congress may, then, tax those activities, such as interstate commerce, foreign trade and the exercise of patent rights, would seem established under the McCulloch definition. That it may tax any and every privileged activity within those lands over which it has exclusive legislative jurisdiction is equally apparent.

The latter, however is virtually inconsequential, since the federal jurisdiction consists solely of the District of Columbia, the territories and those scattered islands of federal lands over which the States have ceded jurisdiction to the federal government, “federal enclaves”. All other territory within the country is in the States, which means they are not within the federal jurisdiction.
Most people would be surprised to learn that they do not live on United States soil and that many have been born, lived and died without ever having set foot on United States soil.
This would be a good time to review one of the regulations discussed hereinabove, more particularly, 26 CFR 1.861-8T(d)(2)(iii):
“(iii) Income that is not considered tax exempt.
“The following items are not considered to be exempt, eliminated, or excluded income and, thus, may have expenses, losses, or other deductions allocated and apportioned to them:
“(A) In the case of a foreign taxpayer (including a foreign sales corporation (FSC)) computing its effectively connected income, gross income (whether domestic or foreign source) which is not effectively connected to the conduct of a United States trade or business; [Jurisdiction to regulate foreign commerce]
“(B) In computing the combined taxable income of a DISC or FSC [international or foreign sales corporation] and its related supplier, 56
the gross income of a DISC or a FSC; [Jurisdiction to regulate foreign commerce]
“(C) For all purposes under subchapter N of the Code, including the computation of combined taxable income of a possessions corporation and its affiliates under section 936(h), the gross income of a possessions corporation for which a credit is allowed under section 936(a); and [Exclusive legislative jurisdiction (all persons, property and activities) in territories or possessions]
“(D) Foreign earned income as defined in section 911 and the regulations thereunder (however, the rules of Sec. 1.911-6 do not require the allocation and apportionment of certain deductions, including home mortgage interest, to foreign earned income for purposes of determining the deductions disallowed under section 911(d)(6)).” [Jurisdiction to regulate foreign commerce] (emphasis and [bracketed material] added)

There is, however, a second area of taxation granted Congress beyond those particular activities and those federal enclaves of exclusive legislative jurisdiction, and that is in the taxation clause itself. Article I, § 8, cl. 1 grants Congress the power to lay and collect duties, imposts and excises. Duties and imposts are related to foreign trade, leaving the sole remaining grant, for internal taxation, to be excises. Thus, those activities that are included within the power to lay and collect excises would, reasonably, be implicit in the grant. The question, then, is to what extent may an excise tax be laid and collected?
6 Again, Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. is controlling and Constitutional law, having been cited and followed over 600 times by virtually every court as the authoritative definition of the scope of excise taxing power.

The inquiry must begin with defining what, exactly, an excise tax is. Webster’s Dictionary defines an excise as:
Excise: obsolete Dutch excijs (now accijus), from Middle Dutch, probably modification of Old French assise session, assessment 1 : an internal tax levied on the manufacture, sale, or consumption of a commodity 2 : any of various taxes on privileges often assessed in the form of a license or fee (emphasis added)

Black’s Law Dictionary defines an excise as:

Excise taxes are taxes “laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges.” Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 31 S.Ct. 342, 349 (1911); or a tax on privileges, syn. “privilege tax”. (emphasis added)

The Supreme Court, as noted by Black’s, has provided a clear and definite scope of the excise taxing authority. In Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911)6, the Supreme Court held that:
“Duties and imposts are terms commonly applied to levies made by governments on the importation or exportation of commodities. Excises are “taxes laid upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges.” Cooley, Const. Lim., 7th ed., 680.” Flint, supra, at 151 (emphasis added)

Now we have two basic areas of internal indirect taxation authority:

1. Taxing authority that is inherent in sovereignty, i.e., “co-extensive with jurisdiction” (McCulloch, supra);
2. Authority to lay and collect excises “upon the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon corporate privileges (Flint, supra).

There is a third area of taxation authority that is not found in the Constitution, nor can any historical or traditional foundation for the taxing authority be found, but since the Supreme Court based its sanctioning of the exercise of taxation over that area as an excise, we can call it an excise of unknown ancestry. This third area of excise of unknown ancestry was established in two cases that, ironically, the Supreme Court believed would be of little significance. The fact, however, is that these cases had a profound effect on taxation in the country that accounts for many of the arcane and mysterious twists, turns and surprising dead ends in the labyrinth of past and current tax codes and regulations.
In Railroad Co. v. Collector, 100 U.S. 595 (1879), the Supreme Court was faced with a challenge to a tax on interest paid by corporations. In this particular case, however, the interest was payable to foreign bond holders. Fully aware of the fact that the foreign bond holders were outside the jurisdiction of the government and that the situs of an obligation is always that of the obligee, the Court (sort of) upheld the tax:
“That the tax was actually collected without resistance, and the present suit is brought to recover it back, is sufficient answer to the assertion that it could not be enforced.
“Whether Congress, having the power to enforce the law, has the authority to levy such a tax on the interest due by a citizen of the United States to one who is not domiciled within our limits, and who owes the government no allegiance, is a question which we do not think necessary to the decision of this case.
“The tax, in our opinion, is essentially an excise on the business of the class of corporations mentioned in the statute.
“. . .The tax is laid by Congress on the net earnings, which are the results of the business of the corporation, on which Congress had clearly a right to lay it; and being lawfully assessed and paid, it cannot be recovered back by reason of any inefficiency or ethical objection to the remedy over against the bondholder.” Railroad Co., supra, at 597-9 (emphasis added)

See also, United States v. Erie Railway Co., 106 U.S. 327 (1882).

So, now we have three areas of indirect taxation authority that the federal government can exercise, those activities within its regulatory authority and all privileged activities within those territories and federal enclaves over which it has exclusive legislative authority (McCulloch); excise taxes on the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities, licensing of certain occupations and corporate privileges (Flint, supra), and, finally, the excise of unknown ancestry or authority on monies payable to nonresident aliens and foreign corporations (Railroad Co., supra).
We also have prohibited areas, those being any activities that are within the scope of the regulatory authority of the States (McCulloch, Farrington, Bailey and Hill, supra) and those activities to which the jurisdiction of the federal government may not apply, i.e., those subjects of taxation that do not exist by the federal government’s authority and are not introduced by its permission (McCulloch, supra) (with the exception, of course of monies owed nonresident aliens and foreign corporations). In other words every activity outside of those three areas of taxation authority are, in Marshall’s words, exempt from federal taxation.
The income tax is an excise
The next issue is whether the income tax is a direct tax, which can be levied on virtually anything, or an indirect tax, which can only be laid on those activities listed in Flint. In 1861 the federal government imposed a tax on income derived from property. The tax was never challenged, but was referred to by Chief Justice White in Brushaber as an excise tax. Brushaber, supra, p. 15. Prior to Brushaber, however, the nature of the income tax had come into question.
In Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and T. Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895), the Supreme Court held that the Income Tax Act of 1894 imposing a tax on income from real estate and investments was a direct tax, and, therefore invalid for want of apportionment. The basis of the ruling was that the tax on the revenues from real estate was a burden on the ownership of the real estate, and, hence, a tax on the property itself. The decision that the tax was direct turned on the source of the income, rather than the income itself and was not in agreement with prior Supreme Court reasoning, such as in Hylton, supra.
In response to the ruling the federal government sought an amendment to overrule the Pollock decision. Ultimately, in 1913, the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution was certified as adopted. It read:
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

Congress immediately passed the Income Tax of 1913, imposing a tax on net income, “from whatever source derived.” The law was challenged in Brushaber v Union Pac. R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 36 S.Ct. 236 (1916), requiring the Court to determine the impact of the Sixteenth Amendment on tax authority. Chief Justice White, who had dissented in Pollock, wrote for the Court, holding that the Sixteenth Amendment did not confer any additional authority to tax and that its sole purpose and effect was to preclude the consideration of the source of income in order to reclassify the tax as a direct tax, requiring apportionment.
. 7 See Funk v. C. I. R., 687 F.2d 264 (8th Cir. 1982) and Miller v. U.S., 868 F.2d 236 (7th Cir. 1989)
8 See Lonsdale v. C. I. R., 661 F.2d 71, 5th Cir. 1981); but, “[I]ts enactment was not authorized by the Sixteenth Amendment.” Brushaber, supra, at 20.
9 See Parker v. Commissioner, 724 F.2d 469, 471 (5th Cir. 1984); as opposed to Brushaber, supra, at 19.
There has been some confusion regarding the actual import of the Brushaber ruling, one court actually holding that the effect of Brushaber was to uphold the constitutionality of the Sixteenth Amendment7(?), and another has held that Congress was given the power to tax incomes by the Sixteenth Amendment8. One court, incredibly, cited Brushaber as holding that the Sixteenth Amendment “provided the needed constitutional basis for the imposition of a direct non-apportioned income tax,”9 a proposition that the Supreme Court in Brushaber categorically rejected! The clear and unequivocal ruling of the Court in Brushaber is that the Sixteenth Amendment granted no new powers to Congress:
“It is clear on the face of this text that it does not purport to confer power to levy income taxes in a generic sense — an authority already possessed and never questioned — or to limit and distinguish between one kind of income taxes and another, but that the whole purpose of the Amendment was to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived.” Brushaber, supra, at 17-8 (emphasis added)

nor did the Court recognize a third class of taxes, a direct tax not requiring apportionment:

“The various propositions are so intermingled as to cause it to be difficult to classify them. We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the Sixteenth Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation, that is, a power to levy an income tax which although direct should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it, . . .” Brushaber, supra, at 10-11 (emphasis added)

The effect of the Sixteenth Amendment was not to permit a direct income tax, nor to grant Congress any additional power of taxation. If that conclusion can be in any doubt from the difficulties experienced by some in understanding the Brushaber opinion, the point is reiterated in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916), the Supreme Court held:
“. . . The provisions of the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived, . . .” Stanton, supra, at 112-3 (emphasis added)

and by the Supreme Court, again, in Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165 (1918), at p. 172-3:

“The Sixteenth Amendment, although referred to in argument, has no real bearing and may be put out of view. As pointed out in recent decisions, it does not extend the taxing power to new or excepted subjects, but merely removes all occasion, which otherwise might exist, for an apportionment among the States of taxes laid on income, whether it be derived from one source or another. Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 17-19; Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112-113.” (emphasis added)

and by the Supreme Court, again, in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), at p. 206: As repeatedly held, this [the 16th Amendment] did not extend the taxing power to new subjects, but merely removed the necessity which otherwise might exist for an apportionment among the States of taxes laid on income. Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, 17-19; Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 112 et seq.; Peck & Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 165, 172-173.
(emphasis and [bracketed material] added)
10 See “Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws”, by Howard Zaritsky, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, May 25, 1979, p. 3.

In a memorandum from the Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, it was stated, citing both Brushaber and Stanton, supra, “Therefore, it is clear that the income tax is an ‘indirect’ tax.”10
There can be no doubt, the income tax is an indirect tax, not a property tax that is immune from direct tax apportionment, and there can be no doubt that the Sixteenth Amendment did not in any way, shape or form enlarge or enhance the taxation power of Congress. Brushaber, Stanton, Peck and Eisner, supra. It is, therefore, subject to the same limitations on taxing authority that are established hereinabove, and that is that it cannot tax person or property without apportionment (Article I, § 9, cl. 4), nor any activity that is without either the scope of federal legislative authority (McCulloch and Farrington, supra), outside the scope of excise (Flint, supra) or monies owed to nonresident aliens and foreign corporations (Railroad Co. and Erie R.R., supra). Nor does the power to tax by excise permit the federal government to tax activities that are solely within the realm of the State jurisdiction (Bailey and Hill, supra).
All of these cases, McCulloch, Farrington, Flint, Railroad Co, Bailey and Hill, are still controlling and the last word of the Supreme Court on the power of the federal government to tax. While there have been other Supreme Court cases upholding the imposition of the income tax, every one of them has been upheld against challenges by corporations and others whose activities are by definition of the excise within the taxing authority. Notwithstanding continuous taxation of income for the last 94 years, there are only two instances where the Supreme Court has ruled on the validity of the income tax with respect to anyone who is either not a corporation or otherwise within the jurisdictional and jurisprudential limitations of the federal taxing authority and in both instances it held the income tax exceeded its Constitutional scope. See Towne v. Eisner, 245 U.S. 418, 38 S.Ct. 158 (1918) and Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 40 S.Ct. 189 (1920) That question, then, remains unsettled and unanswered. The principles set forth in those cases, however, do provide the answer by defining the limits of the federal taxing authority with enough certainty to establish that defendant and the revenue he received for services personally rendered in the practice of law are not subject to that taxing authority.
11 See § 19.22(b), 1940 Code of Federal Regulations

Defendant’s activities and revenues are exempt from federal excise taxation11 as being outside the taxing authority of the federal government

Justice Marshall, in McCulloch v. Maryland, supra, stated without qualification or reservation, that:
It is obvious, that it [the power to tax] is an incident of sovereignty, and is co-extensive with that to which it is an incident. All subjects over which the sovereign power of a state extends, are objects of taxation; but those over which it does not extend, are, upon the soundest principles, exempt from taxation. This proposition may almost be pronounced self-evident.
“The sovereignty of a state extends to everything which exists by its own authority, or is introduced by its permission.” (emphasis and [bracketed material] added)

That principle is still the law of the land. It has never been questioned, challenged nor distinguished into an insignificant corner, much less overruled, probably due to the fact that, as Justice Marshall indicates, the principle is “obvious” and “self evident.” He also gives us a test by which to determine whether a proposed subject of taxation is within that authority, “the sovereignty of a state (not a political subdivision, but a “state”, whether it be the State of Louisiana or the State of Israel or any other sovereign) extends to everything that exists by its own authority or is introduced by its permission.”
Does defendant exist by authority of the federal government? Does he work, live, practice law by permission of the federal government? The answer to both of those questions is, undoubtedly, no. He is, therefore, not within the sovereign power of the federal government and, therefore, both he and his revenues “are, upon the soundest principles, exempt from taxation” by the federal government.
Defendant, Mr. Cryer, is, and was during the two subject years, 2000 and 2001, engaged solely in the practice of law, under license from the State of Louisiana. He is not engaging in interstate commerce, he is not exercising any corporate privileges, he does not work or reside within the federal jurisdiction, residing and working in the State, within State jurisdiction only. Nor is he engaged in the manufacture or sale of commodities and his occupation requires no license from the federal government. And, obviously, he is not a nonresident alien or foreign corporation to whom a person in the United States owes money.
Accordingly, both Mr. Cryer and his revenues are outside the indirect taxing authority of the United States. The federal government is without authority to tax defendant’s revenues because he and his revenue are not either within the jurisdiction of the federal government nor the scope of the excise taxing authority. Therefore, Where there can be no tax, there can be no tax deficiency, an essential element of the charges against Mr. Cryer, and, therefore, it is respectfully submitted that both counts of the indictment should be dismissed, with prejudice.
12 See National Federation of Republican Assemblies v. U.S., 218 F. Supp.2d 1300 (S.D.Ala. 2002)

Defendant and his revenues are exempt from federal excise taxation because they are within the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the State
In Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U.S. 20 (1922), the Supreme Court held that the federal government could not tax those activities that were under the sole and exclusive realm of the States. This is still sound, controlling Constitutional law, and is cited as such on a regular basis, and only recently in nullifying a federal tax law that required an organization to disclose the names of its contributors of money for use by or for the benefit of candidates in state and local elections.12 Reiterating what Justice Taft wrote in Bailey at p. 37:
Grant the validity of this law, and all that Congress would need to do, hereafter, in seeking to take over to its control any one of the great number of subjects of public interest, jurisdiction of which the States have never parted with, and which are reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment, would be to enact a detailed measure of complete regulation of the subject and enforce it by a so-called tax upon departures from it. To give such magic to the word “tax” would be to break down all constitutional limitation of the powers of Congress and completely wipe out the sovereignty of the States.” (emphasis added)

Hill v. Wallace, supra, followed, reiterating the principle that the State sovereignty cannot be invaded through a so-called exercise of taxing authority. These principles are sound and valid, being in total agreement with the concepts of mutually exclusive sovereignty expressed by Justice Marshall in McCulloch. Where one government is sovereign, another cannot be, thus Maryland’s attempt to tax the United States Bank, a creation and agency created by and within the sole jurisdiction of the federal government, could not be sustained.
Farrington, supra, in 1877, made it clear that the mutually exclusive nature of sovereignty, and, via McCulloch, power to tax, was reciprocal, holding that where the State governs, it is as though the federal government does not exist. The cases holding state taxes unconstitutional insofar as they tax any interstate transaction are too numerous to list, but the same principle upon which those cases were based applies to federal attempts to tax activities that are purely within the power of the States to govern.
As Justice Marshall properly, and wisely, observes in McCulloch, at p. 431:

“That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create; that there is a plain repugnance in conferring on one government a power to control the constitutional measures of another, which other, with respect to those very measures, is declared to be supreme over that which exerts the control, are propositions not to be denied.” (emphasis added)

The courts have repeatedly held, as Chief Justice Taft pointed out in Bailey, that where there is authority to tax, the tax must be upheld, even if the tax is intended to and does destroy its subject. However, where the subject of the tax is within the realm of another sovereignty which, within that sphere of activities, is supreme, then the tax cannot be sustained.
The practice of law is solely and exclusively within the jurisdiction of the State, and, therefore, is outside both the jurisdiction and the taxing authority of the federal government.
The Supreme Court has acknowledged the States’ jurisdiction over the practice of law. Railroad Trainmen v. Virginia Bar, 377 U.S. 1 (1964); Mine Workers v. Illinois Bar Association, 389 U.S. 217 (1967).
A review of the enumerated powers of Congress, supra, readily reveals that the regulation of the practice of law is not among those powers. Accordingly, the regulation of the practice of law is “one of the great number of subjects of public interest, jurisdiction of which the States have never parted with, and which are reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment.” Bailey, supra. It is within that “sphere of action where the authority of the national government may not intrude. Within that domain the State is as if the union were not.” Farrington, supra.
Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that the activities and revenues derived from defendant’s law practice are exempt from federal taxation, which cannot intrude into or upon that activity. Accordingly, those revenues being exempt, there is no tax deficiency, an essential element of the charges against Mr. Cryer, and, therefore, it is respectfully submitted that both counts of the indictment should be dismissed, with prejudice.
13 See § 19.22(b), 1940 Code of Federal Regulations

Defendant’s revenues are exempt from federal excise taxation because the activity is the exercise of a fundamental, constitutionally protected right, and, therefore, outside the taxing authority of the federal government

Fundamental rights are those described in general terms by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. They are derived from Natural Law, “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”, not from the Constitution, not from the government. Such rights are inalienable and inviolable, and are not privileges that can be the subject of a tax on privileges.
Therefore, under Marshall’s definition of the scope of sovereignty, being those things that exist by its authority or are introduced by its permission, the scope of the federal government’s sovereignty cannot extend to the exercise of such rights. The right to work and engage in one’s chosen occupation is one of those fundamental rights.
A person’s freedom and ability to work is his own property, and that right cannot be taken, bought, sold or bartered away, at least not since the 13th Amendment was adopted. The Supreme Court has recognized this right as a fundamental right and part of the freedom to pursue happiness. In Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, 4 S.Ct. 652 (1884), the Supreme Court was presented with a case involving a Louisiana statute granting exclusive and irrevocable right to operate stock-receiving and slaughter house operation to Crescent City Company. Crescent City Company had sued Butchers’ Union Co. for a restraining order in an effort to enforce its exclusive franchise. The Supreme Court held that the grant was unconstitutional because it purported to be irrevocable, ceding authority of subsequent legislative action rescinding the monopoly grant.
The case has been cited, however, more often for the premises set out in Justice Field’s Concurrence, in which he stated at p. 756:
“As in our intercourse with our fellow-men certain principles of morality are assumed to exist, without which society would be impossible, so certain inherent rights lie at the foundation of all action, and upon a recognition of them alone can free institutions be maintained. These inherent rights have never been more happily expressed than in the Declaration of Independence, that new evangel of liberty to the people: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident’ — that is so plain that their truth is recognized upon their mere statement — ‘that all men are endowed’ — not by edicts of Emperors, or decrees of Parliament, or acts of Congress, but ‘by their Creator with certain inalienable rights’ — that is, rights which cannot be bartered away, or given away, or taken away except in punishment of crime — ‘and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and to secure these’ — not grant them but secure them — ‘governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.’ “Among these inalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, . . .
“It has been well said that, “The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. . . .” Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, Bk. I. Chap. 10.” (emphasis added)

Although this opinion was a concurring opinion, Justice Field was not alone in his assessment. He was joined in his concurrence by Justice Bradley, who, joined by JJ. Harlan and Woods, also concurred, but on the basis of Field’s reasoning, stating at p. 762:
“The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right; it was formulated as such under the phrase “pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence, which commenced with the fundamental proposition that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that
among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” This right is a large ingredient in the civil liberty of the citizen.” (italics, the Court’s; bold emphasis added)

In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886), the Supreme Court, again, recognized this fundamental right in declaring unconstitutional a statute that would force a Chinese laundry businessman out of business, holding at 370:
“But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, the government of the commonwealth ‘may be a government of laws and not of men.’ For, the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.” (emphasis added)

In Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578 (1897), the Supreme Court held invalid a Louisiana statute prohibiting a citizen from contracting outside the State for insurance on his property lying therein because it violated the liberty guaranteed to him by the Fourteenth Amendment.
In Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33 (1915), an Arizona statute requiring a minimum quota of citizens was declared unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held at p. 41: “It requires no argument to show that the right to work for a living in the common occupations of the community is of the very essence of the personal freedom and opportunity that it was the purpose of the [14th] Amendment to secure. Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746, 762; Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27, 31; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, supra; Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578, 589, 590; Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, 14.” (emphasis and [bracketed material] added)
Again, in Adams v. Tanner, 244 U.S. 590, 37 S.Ct. 662 (1917), the Supreme Court considered a statute prohibiting employment agencies from charging fees for obtaining employment. The Supreme Court, citing and quoting Allgeyer, held:
“The liberty mentioned in that amendment means not only the right of the citizen to be free from the mere physical restraint of his person, as by incarceration, but the term is deemed to embrace the right of the citizen to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties; to be free to use them in all lawful ways; to live and work where he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; to pursue any livelihood or avocation.” Adams, supra, at 595 (emphasis added)

The Supreme Court was presented with a challenge by a German teacher of a Nebraska law which prohibited teaching lessons in any language other than English in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 43 S.Ct. 625 (1923). The Supreme Court held the law was an unconstitutional infringement on a fundamental right protected by the 14th Amendment. At p. 399 the Supreme Court stated:
“While this Court has not attempted to define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36; Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356; Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U.S. 313; Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578; Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45; Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78; Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R.R. Co. v. McGuire, 219 U.S. 549; Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33; Adams v. Tanner, 244 U.S. 590; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Dodge, 246 U.S. 357; Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U.S. 312; Adkins v. Children’s Hospital, 261 U.S. 525; Wyeth v. Cambridge Board of Health, 200 Mass. 474.” (emphasis added)

In Massachusetts Bd. Of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307, 96 S.Ct. 2562 (1976), at issue was a Massachusetts law regarding an age limit for police officers. There was no question regarding the right to pursue one’s occupation as being protected under the Constitution, but only with respect to the standard of review of the law. In objecting to the court’s application of a rational basis standard rather than a strict scrutiny test, Justice Marshall writing at 322: “Whether “fundamental” or not, “`the right of the individual . . . to engage in any of the common occupations of life'” has been repeatedly recognized by this Court as falling within the concept of liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 572 (1972), quoting Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). As long ago as Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1884), Mr. Justice Bradley wrote that this right ‘is an inalienable right; it was formulated as such under the phrase `pursuit of happiness’ in the Declaration of Independence . . . . This right is a large ingredient in the civil liberty of the citizen.’ Id., at 762 (concurring opinion). And in Smith v. Texas, 233 U.S. 630 (1914), in invalidating a law that criminally penalized anyone who served as a freight train conductor without having previously served as a brakeman, and that thereby excluded numerous equally qualified employees from that position, the Court recognized that ‘all men are entitled to the equal protection of the law in their right to work for the support of themselves and families.’ Id., at 641.” “‘In so far as a man is deprived of the right to labor his liberty is restricted, his capacity to earn wages and acquire property is lessened, and he is denied the protection which the law affords those who are permitted to work. Liberty means more than freedom from servitude, and the constitutional guarantee is an assurance that the citizen shall be protected in the right to use his powers of mind and body in any lawful calling.’ Id., at 636.” (emphasis added) See also In re Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394; Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U.S. 313, 10 S.Ct. 862, 34 L. Ed. 455; Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 25 S.Ct. 539, 49 L.Ed. 937, 3 Ann.Cas. 1133; Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 29 S.Ct. 14, 53 L.Ed. 97; Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R.R. Co. v. McGuire, 219 U.S. 549, 31 S.Ct. 259, 55 L.Ed. 328; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Dodge, 246 U.S. 357, 38 S.Ct. 337, 62 L.Ed. 772, Ann.Cas. 1918E, 593; Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U.S. 312, 42 S.Ct. 124, 66 L.Ed. 254, 27 A.L.R. 375; Adkins v.Children’s Hospital, 261 U.S. 525, 43 S.Ct. 394, 67 L.Ed. 785, 24 A.L.R. 1238; Wyeth v. Cambridge Board of Health, 200 Mass. 474, 86 N.E. 925, 23 L.R.A., N.S., 147, 128 Am.St.Rep. 439; Farrington v. Tokushige, 273 U.S. 284, 47 S.Ct. 406, 71 L.Ed. 646; Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535, 45 S.Ct. 571, 69 L.Ed. 1070, 39 A.L.R. 468; and Wysinger v. Crookshank, 82 Cal. 588, 23 P. 54.
There is no doubt that the right to work and to pursue one’s chosen occupation is a basic and fundamental right that the federal government, and, through the 14th Amendment, the States, may not abridge. This is a right that is not owed to the federal government or the Constitution and one the federal government does not grant or permit, thus it neither exists by its authority nor is it introduced by its permission.
The taxing of fundamental rights is so repugnant to the mind, spirit and conscience of any man that even Congress has, with this exception, not undertaken to impose a tax on the exercise of those rights. Therefore there is little case law on the issue. There is, however, some illumination to be gleaned from some home-grown law. In 1934, Louisiana passed an excise tax on publishers of newspapers, magazines and other printed publications. The Supreme Court, in Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233 (1936), struck the law down as an abridgement on the fundamental freedom of speech, stating:
“That freedom of speech and of the press are rights of the same fundamental character, safeguarded by the due process of law clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgment by state legislation, has likewise been settled by a series of decisions of this Court beginning with Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652,666, and ending with Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 707. The word “liberty” contained in that amendment embraces not only the right of a person to be free from physical restraint, but the right to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties as well. Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578, 589.” Grosjean, supra, at 244. (emphasis added)

The Court in Grosjean pointed out, as it did in Murdock and Follett, infra, that a publishing company was not immune from all taxation, in that it could be taxed on its profits as a corporation or on its property, but this tax was an excise on “the privilege of engaging in such business” (publishing a newspaper), not on the exercise of corporate privilege nor on its property.
A license fee for distributing religious material door to door was struck down by the Supreme Court in Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 63 S.Ct. 870 (1943) as abridging freedom of speech, press and religion. The Court stated at p. 108: 82
“The First Amendment, which the Fourteenth makes applicable to the states, declares that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . .” It could hardly be denied that a tax laid specifically on the exercise of those freedoms would be unconstitutional. Yet the license tax imposed by this ordinance is, in substance, just that.”

And at 112:

“the power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment.” (emphasis added) See also Jones v. Opelika, 316 U.S. 584, 56 S.Ct. 444 (1943); Follett v. McCormick, 321 U.S. 573 64 S.Ct. 717 (1944)

Striking down a Virginia poll tax in 1966, the Supreme Court in Harper v. Virginia Bd. Of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 86 S.Ct. 1079 (1966), quoted and cited United States v. State of Texas, 252 F. Supp. 234 (1966), a three-judge panel case, that said at p. 254:
“If the State of Texas placed a tax on the right to speak at the rate of one dollar and seventy-five cents per year, no court would hesitate to strike it down as a blatant infringement of the freedom of speech. Yet the poll tax as enforced in Texas is a tax on the equally important right to vote.”

There is, in addition to the repugnancy of imposing a tax on an activity that is the exercising of what is clearly a fundamental right, protected under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and in addition to the fact that the exercise of that fundamental right and freedom is beyond the reach of the jurisdictional arm as defined by Justice Marshall in McCulloch, still another conflict, and that is that one of the characteristics of an indirect tax is that it is voluntary in the sense that one can avoid payment of the tax by abstaining from the activity taxed. A tax that cannot be avoided by abstention from the activity is a tax on the person or property, not on the activity described. For example, if an excise on tobacco products is imposed, one can simply abstain from consuming tobacco products, avoiding the tax.
However, as was mentioned previously, if a tax were imposed on breathing, a tax that could not be avoided by abstention, or at least not without dire consequences, then such a tax would be a mandatory tax on being (remaining) alive, on one’s existence, and would, therefore, be direct, subject to apportionment.
Working, practicing one’s craft in one’s chosen occupation is, like breathing, not an avoidable activity. While one could resign himself to the life of a hobo, scraping, foraging and begging for his daily bread and living under whatever he can find resembling shelter, that option is only slightly better than abstaining from breathing.
The Supreme Court, in Brushaber, did not uphold the constitutionality of the income tax in all respects, but only in that presented to the Court. The Court left the door open for challenges in other situations where the tax would operate to tax a property (as is a fundamental right) or fall into the class of direct taxes:
“Moreover in addition the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but on the contrary recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment which otherwise as an excise would not apply to it.” Brushaber, supra, at 16-17. (emphasis added)

Chief Justice White, obviously, could see that not all income was taxable by the federal government and anticipated that if the income tax were applied to such income that is outside the taxing authority or would in effect require the taxing of person, property or possession, the effect, or substance, not the name, or form, of the tax would be considered and that apportionment would be required, the Sixteenth Amendment notwithstanding. {14 Black’s Law Dictionary identifies “privilege tax” as a synonym for “excise tax” }
Recalling the reasoning of Justice Marshall in McCulloch, that “the power to tax involves the power to destroy”, and that “there is a plain repugnance in conferring on one government a power to control the constitutional measures of another, which other, with respect to those very measures, is declared to be supreme over that which exerts the control, are propositions not to be denied.” at 431.
Applied to and paraphrased for the instant case: That the power to tax a fundamental right involves the power to destroy that right, and that there is a plain repugnance in the conferring on any government a power to control the freedoms and rights granted by another, which other, with respect to those very measures, is the most supreme sovereignty, the sovereignty and supremacy of the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”, are propositions not to be denied.
It is, therefore, strenuously submitted that where that “privilege tax”14 is imposed upon the exercise of a fundamental, natural right, as opposed to a privilege, to an unavoidable activity, as opposed to an optional activity, that it must be “concluded that to enforce it” against the wages and fees personally earned in the exercise of that fundamental right “would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent.”
Thus, given that the Supreme Court has made it clear that fundamental rights are not to be abridged by taxation (Grosjean, Murdock, Follett and Harper, supra), that a fundamental right is not a privilege by authority or permission of the federal government, and, therefore cannot be the proper subject of an excise (Flint, McCulloch, supra), that the right to work and engage in one’s chosen occupation is his property (Butchers’ Union, supra) and, therefore exempt from indirect taxation by the federal government (Article I, § 9, cl. 4 and McCulloch), it is respectfully submitted that the income tax, as applied (or claimed to be applied), to wages and fees personally earned, without exercise of corporate privileges, without manufacture or sale of commodities and without the lawful jurisdiction of the federal government, is clearly in violation of the Fifth Amendment in that it deprives and abridges an inviolable, fundamental right, and a violation of Article I, § 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution in that it is in substance a direct tax on property, requiring apportionment.
It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that defendant’s revenues, deriving solely from his own labor and effort in the pursuit of his chosen occupation, is {15 See § 115, 1939 Revenue Code }exempt from taxation by the federal government and certainly exempt from indirect taxation by the federal government, and, accordingly, those revenues being exempt, there is no tax deficiency, an essential element of the charges against Mr. Cryer, and, therefore, it is respectfully submitted that both counts of the indictment should be dismissed, with prejudice.
Defendant’s revenues do “not constitute income to him within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution”

In order to avoid repetition of materials already included hereinabove, a brief review of premises already established is in order:
1. The Internal Revenue Code does not define “income”;
2. Webster defines income as a gain or recurrent benefit usually measured in money that derives from capital or labor;
3. Black’s Law Dictionary defines income as The return in money from one’s business, labor or capital invested; gains, profits or private revenue.
4. Louisiana law defines income, “fruits”, as things that are produced by or derived from another thing without diminution of its substance.
5. From 1913 through 1954, the Congress, by statute, acknowledged that some revenues are not income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment (e.g., 1939 Code, § 115);
6. From 1913 through 1954 the Treasury Department in regulations acknowledged that some items are exempt from federal taxation due to either the Constitution or fundamental law and need not be included in gross income (e.g. 1940 Regulations, § 22(b));
7. Following 1954, vestigial remnants of those acknowledgements remain (26 CFR § 1.861-8(f)(1) and 1.861-8T(d)(2)(ii) and (iii));
8. The Supreme Court, in Brushaber, kept the door open on any application of the income tax law that would impose a tax on property or person in which case the Supreme Court would look to substance rather than form and require apportionment (Brushaber, at 16-17).
We have already discussed two examples of Constitutional exemption acknowledged by the Treasury Department, those activities that are beyond the federal government’s jurisdiction and those fundamental rights that are endowed by a superior sovereignty, but what about the regulations acknowledging that some revenues “do not constitute income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution”?
If Johnny Public were to choose the door marked “wages, salaries and fees personally earned”, he would win the prize, the exemption, not only because the right to earn a living is exempt as a fundamental right, but because “‘The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. . . .’ Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, Bk. I. Chap. 10.” Butchers’ Union, supra.
In addition to Webster and Black’s above, the Supreme Court weighed in on the definition of “income”, the same year the word was used in both the Sixteenth Amendment and the first version of the current imposition of a tax on income. In Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 400; 34 S.Ct. 136 (1913) the Supreme Court stated: “Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.” and ” . . . And, however the operation shall be described, the transaction is indubitably ‘business’ within the fair meaning of the act of 1909; and the gains derived from it are properly and strictly the income from that business; for “income” may be defined as the gains derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, combined operations and here we have of capital and labor.” Id at p. 415 (emphasis added)
Five years later, the Supreme Court in Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 U.S. 179, 38 S.Ct. 467 (1918), states:
“Yet it is plain, we think, that by the true intent and meaning of the act the entire proceeds of a mere conversion of capital assets were not to be treated as income. Whatever difficulty there may be about a precise and scientific definition of “income,” it imports, as used here, something entirely distinct from principal or capital either as a subject of taxation or as a measure of the tax; conveying rather the idea of gain or increase arising from corporate activities. As was said in Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415: ‘Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined.'” Id at 184-5 (emphasis added)

As was pointed out, supra, the Court in Brushaber indicated that in the event that receipts that, if taxed, would have the effect of taxing person or property, the Sixteenth Amendment would not prevent it from applying the rule of apportionment, and one such occasion was presented in Towne v. Eisner, 245 U.S. 418, 38 S.Ct. 158 (1918). The district court had ruled that the stock dividend was included in the government’s definition of income subjected to the tax. Justice Holmes, writing for the Court:
“But it is not necessarily true that income means the same thing in the Constitution and the act. A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged, it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and the time in which it is used. . . .The plaintiff says that the statute as it is construed and administered is unconstitutional. He is not to be defeated by the reply that the Government does not adhere to the construction by virtue of which alone it has taken and keeps the plaintiff’s money, if this court should think that the construction would make the act unconstitutional. Id at 425 (emphasis added)

The Supreme Court did think that construction would make the act unconstitutional. The Court went on to hold that the stock dividend was a conversion of capital from one form to another, and, therefore, was not income, regardless of whether the Government’s definition included such conversions in its definition.
In another stock dividend case, Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 40 S.Ct. 189 (1920), the Supreme Court ruled the Revenue Act of 1916 (successor of the 1913 income tax) unconstitutional insofar as it applied to stock dividends. The Court held that:
“. . . Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,” provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle Case (pp. 183, 185).” “Brief as it is, it indicates the characteristic and distinguishing attribute of income essential for a correct solution of the present controversy. The Government, although basing its argument upon the definition as quoted, placed chief emphasis upon the word “gain,” which was extended to include a variety of meanings; while the significance of the next three words was either overlooked or misconceived. “Derived — from — capital;” — “the gain — derived — from — capital,” etc.

Here we have the essential matter: not a gain accruing to capital, not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value proceeding from the property, severed from the capital however invested or employed, and coming in, being “derived,” that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal; — that is income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description.” Id at 207 (italics the Court’s, bold emphasis added)
The only addition or supplement to the Supreme Court’s definition of “income” “within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment” is in Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 75 S.Ct. 473 (1955).16 In that case, the Court determined that where treble damages had been awarded in a fraud claim and was paid and received, the exemplary damages, those in excess of the compensatory damages, were income and subject to taxation.
The Court in Glenshaw Glass distinguished Eisner v. Macomber, stating that the additional damages were “accessions to wealth.” In fact, however, the {16 Cited and followed in Murphy v. I.R.S., 460 F.3d 79 (D.C. Cir. 2006) } reasoning behind Eisner v. Macomber was actually no different from that in Glenshaw, in that the reason stock dividends were found not to be income is that they were not accessions to wealth, i.e., that the corporation was no worse off for the dividend nor was the stockholder any better off for the dividend.
The applicability of the Eisner definition of income to Glenshaw’s exemplary damages was apparently misunderstood because the compensatory damages were never at issue and were not regarded in the analysis. Had the Court done so, it would have realized that in order to recover three hundred percent, the plaintiff must have first incurred one hundred percent. In other words, the income was three hundred less one hundred, the one hundred being the basis, the capital, that produced a gain, profit or “accession to wealth” of two hundred. Glenshaw Glass received three hundred, but its wealth was only enhanced by two hundred. Macomber received additional shares, but his wealth was not enhanced. Whether Eisner v. Macomber or Glenshaw Glass, the measure of income is in the GAIN realized.
There is no doubt that had the government contended that all of the treble damage award in Glenshaw was income, the Court would have rejected such a position. Likewise, if the government were to contend that a widget shop owner could only deduct his shop expenses, but not his cost of goods, from his gross revenue, the Court would not stand for that, either, because that would not only be a tax on the income (gain or profit), but on the capital, as well.
Gain or profit is, without question, that portion of monies received that is above and beyond what was given up, either in property or expense, in order to receive those funds. Gross revenue less cost and overhead equals profit or gain—income. Neither the Court nor the government gave a thought to whether the compensatory damages were income, having backed those compensated damages out of the equation to begin with.
Given the understanding, then, that in order to be income there must first be a gain, or profit, we are prepared to examine whether wages, salaries and fees personally earned (hereinafter referred to collectively as “wages” in the interest of brevity), are income within the meaning of the Constitution.
The Code defines gross income as “income from . . . compensation for services”. Since income is gain, profit, then that definition is actually “that portion of compensation for services that is gain or profit.” The government’s contention is that the gain or profit is everything received for compensation for services, thus with respect to wages the government contends that gross revenue and gross income are the same. Wages are the only revenue that the government treats as equivalent to income.
A tax on gross revenue as opposed to net gain is not an income tax, but a tax on both capital and income. State Tax on R. Gross Receipts, 15 Wall. 284, 21 L. Ed. 164; Philadelphia & S. Mail S. S. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 122 U.S. 326, 30 L. Ed. 1200; Maine v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 142 U.S. 217, 35 L. Ed. 994; and since a tax on gross revenue is taxing both income and capital, insofar as the tax on capital is concerned it is not indirect nor is it ‘exempt’ from the requirement of apportionment.
The problem with wages is that, unlike every other form of “income” described in the code, the government does not permit the wage-earner to back out what he has given up in order to receive those wages. It has been established that a man’s labor is his property, the capital. Thus wages are the purchase price for that property. Any other exchange of property for money must generate a profit before it is considered income, so on what basis does the government contend that all of the money exchanged for his property must be and is profit or gain?
While many have contended that wages are not income because they are a fair and equal exchange of value for money and, therefore, a break-even transaction, that position would be difficult to maintain. The sale of a widget is, presumably, an equal exchange of value for money but such a transaction could generate income (or loss) to the seller.
To contend, however, that there is no value contributed by the seller of labor for wages, and that, therefore 100% of all wages are profit, i.e., income, is not only equally untenable, but is offensive to the senses of reason and justice.
Some may be paid far more than the true value of their effort, exertion and proficiency. Others may be paid only a fraction of the value of their labor and skill. It is impossible to determine what portion of wages is basis and what part is gain.
It is equally impossible, however, to seriously contend that all wages are received in exchange for nothing. As absurd as such a proposition sounds, that is what the government is saying when it states that the cost basis for wages is zero. If, however, the wage-earner must give up something in order to receive his wages, then the wages he receives are not free. If the wages are not free, then they are not 100% profit. Employing a Glenshaw approach, if he must first sacrifice a loss to another in order to receive the wages, then only the “exemplary” portion of his wages is income.
The remainder is capital. What the court termed “human capital” in Murphy v. I.R.S., 460 F.3d 79 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
Assuming that any of the wage is above and beyond the amount of expenditure on the wage-earner’s part, a tax on the entire wage would have to be considered a tax on both the capital, the expenditure, and the profit, and would, therefore be a tax on the capital, or property, portion of the wage. This is exactly what Chief Justice White was describing when he stated that should the application of the income tax have the effect of taxing property or person, rather than profits and gains, alone, then “duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone and hence subject the tax to the regulation as to apportionment.” Brushaber, supra.
If any portion of wages represents what the wage-earner had to give in exchange for the wages, then that portion, however minute or great, is not income, is not a gain or an accession to wealth, and, therefore, that portion is not “income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment” and would be in conflict with the Constitution to the same and identical extent as in Towne and Eisner, supra. It is a tax on gross receipts, which includes the basis or capital, and, therefore, not an income tax. Gross Receipts, Philadelphia Steamship, Grand Trunk and Brushaber, supra.
The distinction here is not one of mere form or technicality. It is a distinction of substance.
So, what does a wage-earner give up in order to receive his wages? It has been said that “When man is born his days are numbered and filled with trouble.” So, too are his work days numbered and filled with toil and exertion. The term “expending” energy is no different than “expend”iture of money or goods. The wage-earner has made an expenditure and received a wage in return.
This and every other court has on innumerable occasions suffered through the monotony of an expert witness recounting statistical and actuarial data in evaluating the remainder of a disabled plaintiff’s work life. While those witnesses usually disagree, having used different assumptions and/or data pools, the one thing upon which every one of them does agree is that the work life of any person is not infinite. We are all mortal. These experts will also agree that work life and life expectancy are rarely the same, but in both instances they are not infinite.
When a wage-earner finishes his year of labor and receives his W-2, it reflects his gross revenue, what he received, not his gross income, what he gained. It does not reflect what he gave up in exchange. He has over the year received the total shown on the W-2, and during the same year he had expended a great deal of energy and labor, he has given a year out of his work life a year out of his life expectancy to another in exchange for his wages. And, yet, the government contends that those wages were all profit, all gain, and that the basis for his earnings was $0.00. He contributed nothing to the exchange and was paid for nothing.
The obvious conflict in the government’s assessment of wages as having been paid for nothing is that if that is the case, then the wages are gratuities, gifts, not “income”. The government cannot have it both ways, to state that the wage-earner on the one hand realized earnings, or income, but on the other hand received a gift, purely gratuitous.
If we attempt to imagine the most “worthless” employment possible, one that required the absolute least amount of expenditure of effort and no knowledge or skill, we would still have to admit that no matter how much or how little such an employment paid, the employee is not paid for nothing. A night watchman, whose only requirement is that he remain in the premises overnight, is still giving up something for his wages. He is not being paid for nothing in exchange.
In Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., supra, Chief Justice Taft stated “All others can see and understand this. How can we properly shut our minds to it?” Id at 37.
A few examples should demonstrate that this distinction between wages, salaries and fees personally earned is one of substance:
Example 1: Gains on Capital
Joe places $100,000 in a certificate of deposit earning 6% per annum. Joe gave up his $100,000 for a year and at the end of the year he received $106,000 of which only $6,000 would be income as defined by the act. Joe still has his original $100,000 and can ‘rent’ it out again for another year, but he pays taxes only on the $6,000 gain.

Example 2: Gains on Sales
Tom buys a widget for $1 and sells it for $2. Tom gave up $1 in order to receive $2, but only the additional $1 is considered income. Tom still has his dollar back and can purchase another widget to sell, but he pays taxes only on the $1 gain.

Example 3: Gains on Labor
Bob pays Bill $50 to unplug Mrs. Haversham’s drain for which Bob charges Mrs. Haversham $75. Bob gave up $50 in order to receive $75, but only $25 is considered income, his realized gain of $25 on Bill’s labor. Bob still has his original $50 that he can use to purchase more labor that he can sell for profit, but he pays taxes only on the $25 gain.

But what about Bill’s $50? What has Bill given up? Nothing? Bill gave up a day out of his life, he expended his effort and skill, employed the use of his working tools. Bill no longer has his day or his labor, both are spent. He cannot, even with every penny of his $50, buy another day or recover the effort he expended, yet according to the government, his $50, every bit of it, is profit, gain, accession to wealth and was received in exchange for nothing. What Bill gave up to receive his $50 was not “nothing”, it was “‘The property which every man has in his own labor, [and] as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. . . .’ Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, Bk. I. Chap. 10.” Butchers’ Union, supra.
Joe recovered his $100,000, and paid no tax on it; Tom recovered his $1 and paid no tax on it; Bob recovered his $50 and paid no tax on it; but Bill can never recover his day, energy or labor, but pays tax on his gross revenue, including the value of his day, energy and labor and even if the value of that day, energy and labor exceeds the gross revenue!
We can all agree that a person’s labor is not only his property, his capital, but that it is depleted in its employment and, eventually, is exhausted and totally spent. We have two major, landmark Supreme Court decisions, still controlling law, dealing specifically with that issue, and the decisions of the Supreme Court in those two cases makes a conclusion that an income tax on wages is not an income tax, but a tax on gross receipts, taxing both income and capital, and, therefore, unconstitutional.
Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 400; 34 S.Ct. 136 (1913) and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, 36 S.Ct. 278 (1916) both dealt with challenges to a tax on profits of mining companies. The first dealt with the Corporation Tax Law of 1909 and the latter with the Income Tax Law of 1913.
The mining companies were contending with an identical issue as we have here with wages, salaries and fees personally earned. They were engaged in a business that required them to deplete their ore deposits in order to conduct that business. They not only incurred costs of operations, overhead and cost of sales, etc., they incurred the depletion of a finite, albeit of unknown quantity, capital asset. At the end of the mine’s life, all of the ore would be gone, just as at the end of our work lives, our ability to earn will be gone. Our human capital will have been exhausted, “sold out”.
The wage issue is exactly the same. Not only does one personally earning a wage, salary or fees incurring costs for tools, work clothes and other expenses, he is depleting his working life along with a goodly portion of his life itself, a finite, albeit of unknown duration, capital asset, his “most sacred and inviolable” asset.
The Supreme Court in both mining cases resolved the problem by determining that the tax, insofar as Baltic was concerned, was not an income tax at all, but a tax on the exercise of corporate privileges and the privilege of conducting mining operations that was “measured in income.”
In Stratton’s Independence, that was the case. The law in question was not an income tax, per se, but an excise on the exercise of corporate privileges, the Corporation Tax Law of 1909. The Court in Stratton’s Independence pointed out that Stratton’s was a corporation and that it was engaging in business activities that generated mining products, two of the proper objects of an excise. On that basis the Court held that the tax was not on the income of the mining operation, but rather an excise on the conducting of the business of a mining operation that was measured in income.
But in Baltic Mining, the Court was dealing with the Income Tax Law of 1913, the same law it dealt with in Brushaber and the direct statutory ancestor of our present income tax law. The tax was not a corporation or mining operations tax, it was an income tax and identified itself as such.
The Court had only two options: 1) Find that the income tax was taxing both the income and the capital and, therefore, unconstitutional, or 2) find that the income tax was taxing something else. It went with the something else. After stating the case and respective positions, the Court briefly and simply stated: “. . . independently of the effect of the operation of the Sixteenth Amendment it was settled in Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, that such a tax is not a tax upon property as such because of its ownership, but a true excise levied on the results of the business of carrying on mining operations.” Id at 114 (emphasis added)
The clear and unmistakable message here is that the only tax that could tax more than income, gross receipts without allowance of deduction for the depletion of the ore body, was a corporate or manufacture of commodities based excise tax. If the income tax could constitutionally tax income of a mining operation, which would include taxing the depletion of its ore body, then the Court would have simply said so. It did not because it could not.
In the case of wages, salaries and fees personally earned, there are no corporate privileges being exercised. The wage-earner is not (at least not for himself, See Calamaro, supra) manufacturing a commodity or conducting mining operations. All he is exercising, and exhausting in the process, is his body, mind and his God-given right to earn a living with both, all at the expense of the loss, or cession, of a good portion of his lifetime here to another in exchange for a wage.
There is no alternate subject of excise. No “something else”, as in Baltic Mining, and the only conclusion we can reach, based upon the sound, ample and still controlling principles set out in all of the Supreme Court cases referred to herein, is that any tax that taxes 100% of wages personally earned has to be taxing not only the gain the wage-earner realized, if any, but also the asset that the wage-earner gives up in exchange for those wages, salaries and fees.
It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that insofar as the government purports to apply the income tax law as imposing a tax on wages, salaries and fees personally earned, it is in conflict with Article I, § 9, cl. 4, of the Constitution, and is, as so applied, unconstitutional and not entitled to enforcement.
17 See “Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal Income Tax Laws”, by Howard Zaritsky, Legislative Attorney, updated by John R. Luckey, research assistant, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, May 25, 1979, updated September 26, 1984, p. 8

Based upon recent cases involving claims that wages are not income there is an apparently common misconception, an erroneous understanding or belief, that the issue of whether wages, salaries and fees personally earned are “income” within the meaning of the income tax law and, particularly, “within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment”, has been settled. It has not.
One government official contends that wages are constitutionally taxable income because the Supreme Court has not found them to be otherwise.17 The same reasoning could be employed to conclude that since the Supreme Court has not found wages, salaries and fees personally earned to be lawfully and constitutionally taxable by the federal government, they are not.
Although numerous cases have been cited as supporting that misconception, a review of the cases commonly cited as such reveals that they fail to support that conclusion. The Supreme Court has never considered the issues here presented, and until it does the latest enunciations from that Court are the law of the land. The position here advanced is not only supported, but mandated, by the current and controlling pronouncements of the principles involved by that body, and no District or Circuit Court can override or negate, much less overturn those Supreme Court pronouncements.
The Court is urged to scrutinize any cases cited to the contrary, and it is suggested that a careful review of those cases mistakenly cited will, it is hoped, clarify that the issue is still in urgent need of resolution and that in the cases generally relied upon to the contrary either the court involved has not actually dealt with the issues here presented, did not have the issue before it, stated no reasoning on any dictum to that effect or is totally without weight.
It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that defendant’s revenues, deriving solely from his own labor and effort in the pursuit of his chosen occupation, without involvement of corporate privilege or conduct of manufacturing or sale of commodities, is in conflict with the Constitution and, therefore, invalid as so applied, and, accordingly, those revenues being excluded from taxation as such, “not constituting income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment” or of the Constitution, there is no tax deficiency, an essential element of the charges against Mr. Cryer, and, therefore, it is respectfully submitted that both counts of the indictment must be dismissed, with prejudice.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons hereinabove given and upon the authorities hereinabove cited it is respectfully submitted that there is and can be no tax deficiency, an essential element of the charges against defendant, and, therefore, it is respectfully submitted that both counts of the indictment should be dismissed, with prejudice.

Fair Warning, this post is a relatively long post of several pages. It is not that I want to bore you. It is that the subject matter is not amenable to much more shortening.

When someone tells you that solving incredibly complex problems is easy or that there IS a quick solution, or they have the answer to all problems “in a nutshell,” and that person is not Jesus the Christ, then the odds are that they want you to buy something or vote them into office and “just trust them”. Think of “Hope and Change” as the mantra, yet not one reasonable suggestion is offered beyond “just trust me”.

For those uninterested in true argument or debate, there is a short post supporting the position of secession. This new post actually gives reasons, answers and the reasoned benefits of secession!

It may take a while for you to get to the end, but it is worth it if you really do want to preserve American Values. Just as an example, in the 1770’s, the supporting arguments for secession were published in pamphlets of scores of pages. As a standard academic ma-neuver, I am incorporating herein, two of the most important, Common Sense and The Rights of Man, both by Thomas Payne, by reference. Truly, y’all who are interested in free-dom, liberty, equality (ya, equality, not affirmative action or some other pseudonym for discrimination, bigotry and legalized theft – read the five virtues post for more), and pri-vate property & personal wealth, regardless of what you may think of these arguments, you should have and read more than once, both of those pamphlets.

With Dan Greenfield and Fred-on-Everything making the obvious points on Execu-tive Branch Scandals and Illegal Aliens Invading; Mark Levin and Sean Hannity professing Originialist Constitutionalism; Taxihack Depressions (on wordpress.com) reporting active black ops; Michael Savage and Glenn Beck talking Survivalism, John Beck, PhD proving visually the profound uselessness of most federal programs, and with nothing reasonable coming from “the ivy covered halls ofacademia”, except appeasement and the surrender of Western Civilization to Transnational Industrial Feudalism, occasionally called Statism, I have decided to enter as “a voice of reason,” even though this will not read as “reason” on the first or even the third reading.

This is not as emotional as you think, the conclusions are both reasonable and rea-soned.

Posted on this blog (www.justplainbill.wordpress.com) is a book list. There have been several good books, including Gasparino’s The Sellout, Jared Diamond’s Collapse, Brion McClanahan’s The Founding Fathers’ Guide to the Constitution, and Pauline Maier’s Ratification, The People Debate the Constitution, 1787 – 1788, published since the last update.

Y’all’s reference library should also have Edwin Meese III’s, The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, ISBN 978-1-59698-001-3, if for no other reason than to see how the original intent of The Founders has been corrupted by the United States Supreme Court, almost since the beginning. Y’all should have it anyway as it is a comprehensive and understandable, at least to those with a 10th grade education, guide to what is NOW the law of the land as interpreted by SCOTUS, ignominiously ignored by congress, and implemented by the executive branch. As conflicted as SCOTUS has made it, Professor Maier’s work, Ratification – noted above, offsets the chaos, for those interested; otherwise, we are back to, understandably, secession, moreover, the 1776 kind of secession, too!

Thucydides’ The Peloponnesian Wars, Sun Tzu’s The Art of War, de Tocqueville’s De-mocracy in America, and Freehling’s two works, Nullification, and Secession, (both having disappeared from book shelves during “The Clinton Years”), with Shelby Foote’s The Civil War: a narrative, are still the most important starting places for understanding the back-ground of why The Red States must secede.

This Secession MUST BE before the funded national debt exceeds twenty trillion U.S. dollars, (20T USD or $20,000,000,000,000.00) and the unfunded debt exceeds ninety trillion U.S. dollars (90T USD or $90,000,000,000,000.00). This debt crisis is on a national economy of less than fourteen trillion U.S dollars (14T USD or $14,000,000,000,000.00). I explain this statement later.

This is a debt to asset ratio of worse than 1:6!!!

Dodd-Franks’ asset tests (reserves) and the Basil III tests, used to determine the solvency of banks, would have declared The United States Bankrupt years ago, like Greece, closed it down, and sold off all of its assets and property, at bargain basement prices, probably less than ten cents on the dollar, to cover those debts; which is an absurdity. None-the-less, the standard that these pissant politicians apply to others, they fail to apply to themselves as they garner billions of dollars from the public treasury for themselves and their associates.

A simple glance at the accumulation of money by Nancy Pelosi, Dodd, Franks, the DNC contributor/ owners of Solyndra, and the Reid Family in Nevada, and the methods used, prove this point.

And, because of these things, we are left with Revolution/ Civil War, a Constitutional Convention, economic collapse and bankruptcy with an unemployment rate approaching 50%, delayed social implosion and its resulting anarchy to tyrannical governments, or Secession, my personal option if done before the debt becomes irre-deemable.

Argument:

I

The Preamble to The Constitution of The United States of America is NOT law. It is a statement of purpose. [We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America]. Notice the words emphasized by capitalization, and the sentence structure, notice that the constitution is FOR the United States. Notice that throughout the constitution, the word ‘state’ is capitalized as ‘State,’ thus proving the independence and sovereignty of each State; proving that they are not a subordinate division devised for the purposes of ease of suppression, oppression, and repression.

This is a statement of intent, not law, and not to be construed as law.

The Preamble is one of two looking glasses, through which we should be scrutinizing every activity of the federal government. If any action of the federal government does not further one of these stated interests, it should fail as violating the IXth and Xth Amendments. If those proposing such illegal actions are in federal government, those people should be deemed untrustworthy and unreliable by every citizen, and treated as such.

The second looking glass is that collection of works known as The Anti-Federalist Papers. The Anti-Federalist Papers were those arguments used against the ratification of the original seven articles. The Federalist Papers, predominantly written by Alexander Hamilton, ESQ., with contributions by James Madison, ESQ., and a handful by John Jay, ESQ., later the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, is a set of circular and specious reasoning, often used to justify or explain various clauses of the constitution.

Chronologically, and logically, The Federalist Papers should be ignored as having been displaced by The Bill of Rights. The sequence of events are: failure of The Articles of Confederation, the failed Annapolis Convention, the successful Philadelphia Convention, presentation to the states for ratification, argument where initially the press pushed The Federalist Papers and suppressed The Anti-Federalist Papers, the prospect of ratification failure, and then the acceptance of The Bill of Rights as the cost of ratification. The Federalist Papers are arguments for ratification WITHOUT THE TEN AMENDMENTS of The Bill of Rights. Thus, in order to interpret this constitution, it is The Anti-Federalist Papers which must be first looked to for understanding, and The Federalist Papers to be used ONLY when they are either not in conflict with the Anti-Federalist Papers, or where the AFP’s are silent on the subject.

Thus, more than one-half of all constitutional issues decided by The Supreme Court, by The Congress, and by The Executive, have been founded on the false premises of The Federalist Papers. The methods available to correct this are either that congress review ALL of these decisions and over-rule them by legislation, and thereby face a SCOTUS revolt, this revolt based on decisions such as Holy Trinity Church, (included below), and The Federalist Papers themselves, or SCOTUS, on its own Motion review and over-rule these rulings.

The likelihood of SCOTUS emasculating itself are nil and less than nil, especially giv-en Justice Bader-Ginsburg’s recent sexist ramblings and Justice Kagen’s published igno-rance of American History.

During George Washington’s presidency, The Executive frequently declared legisla-tive bills as unconstitutional. The understanding then was that congress would reconsider what President Washington sent them and either re-write or drop the bill. President Washington frequently took the opportunity to place his Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, and his Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, at odds writing responses to congress, then he would pick the one that suited his point of view, and return the bill to congress with the appropriate response. Hamilton frequently trumped Jefferson, thus, the Jobber High Federalist rutted road was ridden, and not the green pathway of the Yeoman-Farmer.

Congress will do nothing to change this, as members of congress are too intimately involved in accumulating personal wealth and power under this system, I will explain elsewhere how this dysfunction functions. The likes of Jackson, Rangel, Boehner, Pelosi, Reid, &c., will do nothing to jeopardize their own personal positions, even unto total de-struction of the society around them. There is a book, Throw them All Out, which details the dirty but legal transactions involved; consider the recent rash of convictions for corruption amongst the political aristocracy and their families.

Arguments made to have another constitutional convention or add 27+ amend-ments, the amending process as defined in Article V of the constitution, fail for several reasons. The first is, as noted elsewhere on this blog, that the electoral process has failed utterly. It has been corrupted to a point beyond cure. The election of Al Franken and the corruption in Noxubee County MS are the standard and not the exceptions such that fair representation, unbiased national interest, and altruism would be non-existent at this convention. The second major defense is the same as that made in 1860: the regional interests will suppress the national ones. The cliché, “All politics are local”, is too true to be ignored.

Only through the Red States seceding are all of those bad SCOTUS decisions removed from law.

A consideration of historical context and technology intrudes at this point. When originally ratified, the congress was designated to sit for only a few months out of the year, and, that it sit several months after the polling occurs because of primitive transportation technology. In 1788, there was no electricity and the steam engine, “Fulton’s Folly”, still years away. Bluntly, there was NO SUCH THING AS A LAME DUCK SESSION as we now know it, as congress had recessed and would not return until the Spring. Recess appointments were few and far between, but understandable when congress could be months away from sitting. Only through secession will Lame Ducks and Recess Appointments be eliminated! They are too ingrained into the political corruption of both major parties to be done away with in any other fashion.

With electricity, electronics, jet transportation, I-Phones, I-Glasses, internet access, &c., the reasons for lame duck and recess appointments completely disappear. With seces-sion and a new constitution, polling can take place on the 3rd Saturday of the 1st month of each quarter; certification of the election can take place within 5 working days; and a re-striction on laws and appointments during those 5 days included in the constitution, thereby completely eliminating the egregious, self-serving, irresponsibility of passing an unwanted law or giving the wrong person an appointment, when the next government would not do those things, especially if the issues surrounding those laws and appointments are what the election was about. Think about it: John Marshall and his entire line of High Federalist SCOTUS rulings would not exist if this had been the law in 1800!

Secession cures this disease.

I-a

There are seven Articles to the 17 September 1787 Constitution of The United States of America. Before 1866, “These United States” were what we were. A Union of In-dependent Nations with each State having its own constitution, not answerable beyond those restrictions explicit in the constitution, to a Federal Government, but to its citizens, and thus free to organize and live free, unoppressed, with the right to self-realization uninhibited by those living thousands of miles away.

The Federal Government, according to the IXth and Xth Amendments,(enacted as ten of twelve proposed Amendments, currently known as The Bill of Rights, on Wednes-day, 4 March 1789), was to be a junior partner in the triumvirate of, the federal govern-ment, We The People, and The States. [Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. *** Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.]

The ten sections of Article I of the 1787 Constitution establish, define, and restrict the Congress of These United States of America. They create the bicarmel legislature with the “lower” house as the’ house of commons,’ or of “We The People”, and the “upper” house that of THE STATES; not that of an electoral majority of we the people on an extended appointment of exalted, and aristocratic, position.

The XVIIth Amendment effectively eviscerates Article I §3 [The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years, and each Senator shall have one Vote. … .] and clearly violates both the IXth and Xth Amendments. It reduces State Sovereignty to nil, with ONLY Nullification +/or Secession, as a response to an overbearing or out of control federal government. [Shelby Foote has a decent discussion of this in The Civil War: a narrative both in the ante-bellum section and in the section discussing the aftermath of Antietam.] One only need look to the effects of “The Dream Act” and its complete abandonment of the Southern Border and the Governor of Texas having to call up his state’s militia to attempt to protect his citizenry, their lives and their society and private property & wealth.

The discussion of the effect of reducing the senate to little more than a House of Lords, was on partisan lines, with the typical political result: In the short term, it helped the majority party, in the long term it has afflicted the taxpayer with trillions of dollars of unnecessary, unwanted, and unconstitutional burdens, both social and economic. The very effect of having this House of Lords has been constant gridlock, with, for all of the yammering on the subject, little, if any, compromise in the legislative process. The purpose of the senate as put forth in McClanahan’s book was to act as a brake on the impetuousness of the House of Representatives, AND to REPRESENT THE INTERESTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL STATES!

With the senators elected by the general population instead of by the states’ legislatures, the senate no longer represents the States, but is now irrelevant. It reduces to near zero, the political strength of the citizens of the individual states and clumps them into a rural vs urban sewer of issue conflicts, winnable only by that group procreating the most rapidly, and, history shows us, destroying economic efficiency through socialist “safety net” programs, instead of the necessary self-reliance/ self-responsible of the Judeo-Christian Ethos.

This same purpose, protecting the interests of the States, is better served by the process of Nullification. Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison saw, and agreed to this, when they wrote and put forth The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. Nullification, (there is a post on this blog discussing Nullification more fully), has been used as recently as 2014 by the various states. Three examples are California nullifying federal immigration law by creating sanctuary cities, Colorado nullifying federal illicit drug laws by legalizing the recreational use of Cannabis and the 2010 rejection of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, (aka PPACA or “Obamacare”) by the citizens of Missouri (by a margin of 70% – 30%).

Nullification as currently used, is another argument in favor of secession due to Article IV, [§1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and Judicial Proceedings of every other State. And, the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved and the effects thereof. … .] Nullification is acceptable in California and Colorado, but not Missouri, ever wonder why?

Please note where and under what circumstances nullification is acceptable and not acceptable. In point of fact, legally and morally, SCOTUS should have taken this into account when ruling on various aspects of PPACA. The failure of SCOTUS to perform within the law, in and of itself, should be reason enough for secession. Due to various XVIIIth Century SCOTUS rulings, not only is tenure for life a facet of being a federal judge, but one may be suffering from dementia or extreme alcoholism, yet remain on the bench, AND THAT JUDGE OR JUSTICE’S RULINGS ARE STILL BINDING!

Thus, by their own actions, both SCOTUS and the entire senate have defeated the purpose of the constitution. Secession is the least objectionable response to such irresponsibility, to this assault on personal Faith, private property and personal wealth.

The need for the upper house to be placed, as originally intended by The Founders, back to the citizen-taxpayers of each, and every individual, INDEPENDENT, State, is shown every time a party official prevents national work from being performed. The current institution is nothing more than a millionaires’ club, with its purpose naught more than self-perpetration, and making their bubba’s rich. The “Black Hole” in Boston is an excellent example of this, as is the constant raiding of the Transportation Fund for projects like “light rail”, instead of roads and bridges, which was what the original enabling was for.

Consider further this little tidbit. The money for the Federal Transportation Fund is from a tax on gasoline. The reasoning was that since cars and trucks would be using the roads and bridges, car and truck owners should pay for the bridges and roads. Now, the gasoline tax must be raised so that members of congress can buy construction workers’ votes by spending the money on less effective projects that are more expensive like “light rail”. Interestingly enough, the 9 Aug 14 issue of The Economist, has an article on this very subject.

As to Secession, the Stanford Convention of 1814, where the New England States voted to remain in the Union, provided that The War of 1812 be ended, is only one of several secession conventions. Dr. Freehling’s work is excellent for those who actually want to research the issue. Suffice it to say that, the next secession was when Andrew Jackson and his Democratic Party so controlled the federal government that the South was so heavily taxed for “economic improvement,” (canals & railroads, special loans to industry – think Solyndra), and the benefits of all of these taxes given to the Northern states, that South Carolina did hold a convention and start the secession process. Former president John Q. Adams, then a senator from Massachusetts, intervened, and South Carolina did not secede and Jackson’s Tax Law was repealed! Think Obamacare!

Shortly thereafter, the third party candidate, Abraham Lincoln got elected to the executive, and the seven Deep South states seceded. Lincoln, arguably the worst president this country has ever had, [know anybody else who not only caused a civil war costing as much as The War of 1861 did in both lives and wealth; violate the constitution so many ways through executive decree {instituted an unconstitutional raising of an army, fired on States’ militias, took and hanged innocent hostages as a means of controlling citizens in occupied territories, instituted a draft without an act of congress, created an income tax specifically prohibited by the constitution – not made legal in this country until 3 February 1913 with the questionable ratification of the XVIth Amendment, invaded the Sovereign Commonwealth of Virginia, piratically boarded British commercial vessels and kidnapping private citizens under the protection of The Crown, and on and on} – BTW, Lincoln freed NO slaves, the XIIIth Amendment did that, and the discussion by his own cabinet as to the constitutionality of his Emancipation Proclamation shows it to be unconstitutional as it is not allowed even within the executive’s war powers, AS IT DEALS WITH THE CONFISCATION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY W/O DUE PROCESS (!!!), AN ISSUE ALREADY DECIDED BY SCOTUS, Scott vs Sanford, THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO SUCH AUTHORITY!!!], in direct violation to the constitution, congress was NOT in session, started to raise a Standing Army and threatened to “cross” Virginia with it in order to put down the legally seceding states.

Virginia and the three border states, then held secession conventions and decided to secede from the union. For the results of Lincoln’s unconstitutional acts, I direct your attention back to Mr. Foote’s excellent work. His discussion of how Missouri did not secede yet Lincoln’s general, Frèmont, invaded anyway, treating Missourians as subjugated serfs, the treatment of occupied territories by such union generals as Butcher Butler in New Orleans and the confiscation of private property sold for personal gain, are enlightening, to say the least.

Point being, secession was and is legal. Further proof, is that in 1854, then Repre-sentative from Illinois, that same A. Lincoln, made a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives declaring so, and that he understood the law to be so. And, consider that although called The American Revolution of 1776, it was, in both fact and law, a secession from the Hanoverian Crown!

A last point on Article I, the “just and proper” enabling clause, is always interpreted through the dark glass of the specious Federalist Papers. Since it has been shown that it should be viewed through both The Preamble and The Anti-Federalist Papers, every case that has supported this clause’s use to over-reach and extend federal authority, should be made null and void. Only through secession can all of those laws and SCOTUS decisions be removed.

I – b

Ok, here’s the simple view and clearly why the federal government must be limited to federal issues ONLY!!

A Congressman from Detroit wants special tax privileges for certain constituents. Lady Speaker wants an extension to an Interstate to go over land to which she and her husband have options to buy. They swap votes, each voting for the other’s special situation. The result:
A special section of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), based on the section of the constitution stating that the congress should be doing things to help commerce and science, is amended to include that any money lost from the start-up of a Hip-Hop/ Rap Record Label, shall be written off the investor’s Gross An-nual Income at 50:1. Thus, for every dollar lost on said record label start-up, the investor can take off $50.00 of income. The result is a boom of record labels in Detroit, creating proprie-tary jobs for in-laws, family, and friends, an economically mis-direction of economic resources, and an incredibly favorable tax break for those specific investors.

Balancing this congressional support for advancing commerce and science, Madame Speaker, knowing months in advance of the public exactly where the unnecessary Interstate extension will go, exercises her options to buy hundreds of acres of land at $180/acre, and then sells it to The Department of Transportation for $1,800/acre.

Both the Congressman from Detroit and the Congresswoman from San Francisco, have personally, AND LEGALLY, profited from these acts of congress. We, the taxpayers, have lost. We have lost in the one case by being over-charged for the land, and in the other in that those “losses” have reduced the “investors’” tax payments.
Is this simple enough for you?

In a full-blown argument including Article II, discussion of presidential over-reach, appointing of bubba’s, failure to enforce the law, &c., would be gone into. However, with all of the public discussion, or lack thereof, regarding The Obama Administration and its scandals, its appointments of racists and bigots such as Perez and Holder; scandals such as NSA spying on US citizens, the IRS, Benghazi, Hillary & Kerry, the dropping of the New Black Panther Voting Violation law suit, its failure to enforce the Mississippi Federal Court Decision regarding the Sheriff of Noxubee County, the as yet unexhausted abuse of the military, the continuing exercise of executive authority to change passed legislation without returning to the legislature for a re-write, the “Dream Act” executive order, the deaths of Federal Agents by foreigners, &c. I see no such need. The only way to re-write The Executive and get rid of all of the entrenched civil servants like Lois Lerner, is through secession.

Let us be more clear: Obama has appointed over three dozen ACLU and La Raza attorneys to the Justice Department Civil Rights Division, how impartial will they be, when J. Christian Adams’ book Injustice: the Obama Justice Department, already shows how bad things are in the DoJ. The evidence mounts.

And, as to the whole civil service, the over One Million of Them, what shall be done now? How many of them are Lois Lerners?

Bluntly, if even one is a Lois Lerner, the integrity of the whole system fails. Only se-cession cures the cancer of the Obamacratic Bureaucracy. Or, do you really think that Lois Lerner was (she got to retire with full pension and benefits) the only rotten apple in the bureaucracy, or that only the IRS, NSA, CIA, SSA, HUD, OPM, NLRB, ACE, Medicare, and the VA, are the only really bad federal agencies? Mmm, wait a minute, doesn’t that leave ONLY the Military as honest? And, hasn’t Obama fired so many generals and admirals that the only people appointed to flag positions are those with good records on gender, race, and affirmative action, pretty much leaving combat skills out of the promotion equation? Or, did I miss something in the recent speech by The Commandant of The Marine Corps (Barry, the P is silent!) condemning current Executive Policies?

III

The failure of The Supreme Court of the United States, created by Article III, to follow even the most basic of The Rules of Contract and Statutory Construction, that every person who has completed their first year of law school, not only understands the rule but the WHY the rule exists reasoning, is, in and of itself, reason to secede. The failure to follow the most simple of the rules of law, proves beyond any doubt that The Federal Judiciary is incapable of being impartial, of rendering a constitutionally grounded ruling, or even of acting on the surface in a non-partisan, reasoned judgmental manner.

When PPACA was ruled constitutional as a tax and CJ Roberts declared that the duty of SCOTUS is not to make law, but to interpret law in accordance with the intent of congress, he was correct. That he completely ignored the affirmed and boldly broadcast intent of congress, was NOT correct. Madame Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, had declared openly, and had printed in The Congressional Record, the official source and record of congressional intent, that there was not to be a severability clause in PPACA. She said outright that PPACA was an all or nothing bill, and was to be an all or nothing law. When SCOTUS ruled one iota of the law unconstitutional, the will of congress was that then the entire law was to be unconstitutional!

But there is so much more!

The chain of Marshall Cases beginning with Marbury vs Madison, (~1803) all in vio-lation of a clear reading of the constitution, has as its purpose a re-write of the constitution along High Federalist lines, and gives SCOTUS a higher footing than the other two branches, when the original intent was that it be the least of the three branches. The overt end of that line is the following, and it is still law, Shepardize it if you like. It has been “restricted” and “narrowed” but never the less, it is still good law. The covert end of these rulings has not been reached. The gross failure to follow the simplest of the rules of construction, the severability clause, proves SCOTUS is still seeking absolute dominance over government.

Rector, et al, Holy Trinity Church vs United States
143 US 457 (1892)
“(@ 12 SCT 511) It must be conceded that the act of the corporation is within the letter of (the law) … (@ 12 SCT 512) It is a familiar rule that a thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute, because not within its spirit nor within the intention of its makers. This has been often as-serted, and the Reports are full of cases illustrating its application. This is not the substitution of the will of the judge for that of the legislator; for frequently words of general meaning are used in a statute, words broad enough to include an act in question, and yet a consideration of the whole legislation, or of the circum-stances surrounding its enactment, or of the absurd results which follow from giving such broad meaning to the words, makes it unreasonable to believe that the legislator intended to include the particular act.”

Emphasis added.

It is important to note the historical context of this decision, especially with the court using the illogical reasoning that it expresses above.
In 1892 there was a Federal Labor law that stated that no enterprise could em-ploy a foreigner for any position whatsoever in these United States if there was an American able and willing to do that job.
Holy Trinity Church is the Episcopal Church located at Wall & Church Streets in New York City. It was originally Anglican a.k.a. Church of England (C of E), but, as did most Anglican Churches in 1776, vote to distance itself from The Crown. Holy Trinity Church is where Alexander Hamilton is buried. It is where the power elite of old families of New York City, and the early Federalists, belonged, worshipped, and congregated. It is where the business people attended. Currently, it owns ALL of the land from Wall Street south and collects all of the rents therefrom. As a church, it pays no taxes but supports various politicians and approved charities.
In 1888, Holy Trinity Church decided to employ a new bell ringer. The Elders de-cided to hire a German to do it. They did in fact know that there were hundreds, if not thousands, of New Yorkers ready, willing and able to do the job. They did not care, and they did in fact know that they were breaking the law, at least according to the syllabus.
And, the Supremes decided to keep John Marshall’s usurpation of power alive and well, the Constitution of the United States notwithstanding.

Article IV is one of the most egregiously and violently violated articles of the constitution. [§1 Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Act, Records, and Judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved and the Effect thereof. §2 The Citizens of each State be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. … . §3 New States … . §4 The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of government, and shall protect each of them from Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.]

(I must pause and catch my breath every time that I proofread this essay when I get to this point. Ah-ha, not better, should probably go get a scotch & water, no ice.)

Just a little bit here, as once you read the very few points that I make, y’all will be putting forth many more of your own, and realize that secession is the least bloody way of getting rid of this.

For decades, the only two places an American could get a divorce were Mexico and the State of Nevada. For Nevada, you went to Reno, rented a room for six weeks to establish CITIZENSHIP through meeting the residency requirements, then filed for a “no fault” divorce and it was routinely granted. Ta-da! The divorce became good worldwide!!!

First problem, as SSA and Medicaid became rights, the residency requirement limit-ing access to State Aid, was dissolved by SCOTUS, as residency requirements somehow infringed on a magically implied constitutional right to mobility. This issue as a national issue is still unresolved.

Second problem, now that California and New York have decided to grant Illegal Aliens driver’s licenses, these new license holders may now travel legally everywhere within the federal jurisdiction, regardless of the rights and laws of the other 48 states. Note also the invasion all along our Southern border and how the feds are not protecting our citizens.

Third problem, these NY & CA driver’s licenses are Legal Acts within the meaning of Article IV. THEY ARE NOW USABLE AS GOVERNMENT ISSUED LICENSES, WHICH MAY BE USED TO REGISTER TO VOTE IN ALL 50 STATES!!! Think that I’m joking? Look at how the ACLU and La Raza have prevented the use of photo ID’s to register to vote and as proof of citizenship at voting precincts. Magically, to denote citizenship or lack thereof on these licenses will, by federal court ruling, be discrimination, thus, all driver’s licenses MUST be the same, and thus, automatic amnesty and FULL citizenship!

Now, consider this, if any State pass a law that CA or NY licenses are not valid forms of identification, do you really think that the NAACP, La Raza, or the ACLU, will sit idly by? What federal court won’t declare such a law unconstitutional simply on a clear reading of Article IV???

Do I really need to go into the problems with PPACA, abortion laws, right to work laws, DMV laws, tax laws, landlord-tenant laws, &c.? Or do you think that you can pick up your local paper, or listen to your local talk radio, and see the problems with how Article IV has been interpreted and abused? Hasn’t Breitbart reported more than a dozen illegal alien crimes this week alone, including child molestation and vehicular manslaughter?

V

I’m going to pass on the rest of the articles, except to point out that Article V is the amending article, and the post on this blog regarding how The XIVth Amendment has never been ratified pretty much covers all of that, and Article VI §1 is about debts made before the constitution was ratified, but that Article VI §2 is the so often abused and intentionally misinterpreted “supremacy” clause. As pointed out earlier, this clause should be viewed through the two glasses of the preamble and the AFP, and has not been. Article VII is that this constitution shall go into effect as between them when nine of the 13 STATES ratify it.

VI

I should probably go into the amendments, there are 27 of them, but there are only a few of immediate concern. We are constantly talking about The 1st Amendment, which deals with various freedoms including that of religion and assembly. One point, it applies to rules and laws made by The Federal Government and was put in to specifically prevent the feds from doing things like the PPACA forcing people to pay taxes that violate their religious beliefs. Keep in mind that Massachusetts and Pennsylvania had State religions into the 1840’s. Those states collected taxes that paid for the salaries of preachers and their estates, so much for the supremacy clause and freedom of religion.

The 2nd Amendment as intended by The Founders gives non-felons the right to bear arms. A quick look at the time and how The Minute Men were formed, organized, supplied, and supported, proves this without any doubt. However, for those of you who do not believe this, elsewhere is a complete essay on the federal law that defines the militia. Simply put, ALL healthy males, except for a very limited set of exemptions – primarily the “essential” personnel groups of federally elected officials and certain bureaucrats- between the ages of 16 and 48 (the ages may have changed as I haven’t looked since I wrote the original essay), are The Militia. Ya, and some women, too, but you need to read the law to see who. AND, each and every member of this militia is supposed to know basic drill/ The Landing Party Manual, a basic knowledge of infantry tactics, basic marksmanship, and to have and maintain a RIFLE! Yupper, Federal Law states this! Under this federal law, who among you are un-convicted felons?

And, a quick aside as to a peculiar point of history and The 2nd Amendment: After Lee’s surrender at Appomattox Courthouse, the hatred between the races, as pointed out by Shelby Foote’s book, caused by The Emancipation Proclamation, caused the creation of the KKK, which went about keeping the former slaves in check, mostly through violence, particularly murder. The National Rifle Association was created to buy arms, GIVE THEM to former slaves, and train them in their use, so that they may protect themselves from such terrorism.

Last point in here, the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments are the ‘criminal rights’ amendments. Originally designed to protect ALL citizens from the over-reach of the federal judiciary and congress, they have been misinterpreted to protect only criminals. Think about it, only criminals are granted Due Process. PPACA is a tax that the taxpayer cannot individually challenge. YOU CANNOT challenge the feds when the IRS takes everything away through a mistake. YOU CANNOT challenge the feds when the DEA breaks into your home when they meant to break in next door. YOU CANNOT challenge the EPA when they declare that all standing water is protected by The Clean Air Act, thus they have authority on your driveway even though that puddle will evaporate. Under The Patriot Act, you cannot challenge a warrantless search. And, the list goes on and on.

Epilogue and Conclusion

There are other things to consider, but with all of the above, where else can you go? National Bankruptcy, Civil War, a perverted Constitutional Convention, Anarchy to Tyranny, or Secession, which one is actually reasonable and workable?

But what benefits derive from secession?

1

The first and most urgent benefit from a Red State Secession is that of immediate and complete control over the National Debt.

The Red States will take 1/3rd of the debt, or a projected $6T, leaving the industry heavy and, if allowed to be, completely energy independent blue states with $12T. No real change is apparent at this point. OH! COME LOOK AND SEE!!! The $83T of UNFUNDED DEBT immediately disappears through operation of Contract Law through rescission and novation!!! Simply put, because the legal entity known as The United States of America dis-appears, except for the total national debt, all contracts and promises made by it also dis-appear. Magic! Harry Potter couldn’t do it better. Don’t believe me? Consider how when someone dies, his estate pays off what debt it can, but once unprotected assets are used up, the rest of the debt is simply written off. Here, the new entities, blue and red, accept their proportionate share of that debt, but, as in death, all of the deceased’s promises are vacated as un-executable.

Thus, there is NO MORE unfunded debt. Magic!

2

Next, as noted many times above, all of the laws and court decisions of The Union are no longer applicable to The Red States. And, because of the secession, The Blue States MUST review ALL of those laws and decisions for current applicability to them! Gosh and Golly, two win-win situations in a row, I wonder if there are any more to be had.

3

The Red States will write a new constitution. One applicable to the Times! One that will include electricity, electronics, medicine, &c. in it. This convention would have over 238 years of U.S. AND WORLD HISTORY to guide it. It could start with The Albany Plan, The Virginia Plan, The New York Plan, The Heartland Plan, and The Rhode Island Plan as well as Hagehot’s British Constitution as initial proposals, and then put together a truly workable federal government that would leave local issue to the locals, and make certain that the new federal government dealt ONLY WITH FEDERAL ISSUES. Hmm, three good reasons in a row.

4

By secession, the economic circumstances of North America would change almost instantly for the better. Yupper, Canada, The Red States, The Blue States, Mexico, Central America, and The Caribbean would instantly become the most dynamic economic machine through the forced renegotiation of all trade agreements. The XL Pipeline would immedi-ately be started, Pass Christian MS, Pascagoula MS, Tampa FL, Vera Cruz MX, Hispaniola, and Cuba, could start building new, environmentally safe, refineries. NAFTA would be re-done to require uniform enforcement. Unemployment should drop to 3% average throughout the entire region while labor force involvement should jump to 69%. Nuclear Fusion plants would be planned and built. A standardized rail system from Point Barrow to Panama City Panama would be built. Stabilization of currency would be immediate.

5+

How much more do you want? Taxation would be rationalized and evened out. Education throughout would be standardized and equalized. Private property and wealth would be protected, which could be done now if only the various governments would im-plement the laws currently on the books.

6+

Borders would be closed and protected. An intelligent and uniform foreign policy would be emplaced.

7+

More? How about true freedom of religion? How about being protected against terrorist attacks, like the Boston Marathon, by terrorists, instead of useless assaults on our persons by an ineffective TSA?
Secession, secession, secession, and secession BEFORE THE NATIONAL DEBT GOES PAST $18t AND THE UNFUNDED $83T